The "Disney Look"

[cblodg]

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

I have read the court documents from the above link. Does he have a case, maybe. I'd like to see Disney's filed papers in this matter. I don't think that Disney is discriminating against anyone, they are giving them a clear choice. You either can choose to look the way Disney wants you to and take the job, or not and not get hired.

I think this is just purely money grubbing at it's worst. There is no way this kid was making $1,000,000.00 and to say that he has been psychologically damaged in any way is an absolute FARCE!

 

[fosse76]

Thanks for the citations, very insightful, however, they all refer to people who were currently employees of the company concerned. The man in question in our lawsuit was not an employee. He is contesting the fact that he wasn't hired. I believe the difference is very important.

He has to prove that he wasn't hired based on his appearance. Since, in general, the hiring of someone is usually the discretion of one person, it may be near impossible for him to prove it. I'm not sure how Disney deals with its rehire employees. When I workd at Six Flags, which is open only seasonally, at the end of the season you were assigned one of two codes: rehire or no rehire. If you received the rehire code, you were automatically employed the next season. I'm assuming that Disney doesn't do this based on the year-round nature of the business, and the fact that he claims he re-applied. I guess the question is, does Disney have some paperwork requirement when someone is terminating their employment because the season ended that would indicate whether or not Disney would rehire the individual?

 

[kimmychad]

Fraud, maybe. Not sure where you see insurance companies being involved....

if he were to win a settlement it would be paid by an insurance company, not disney directly

 

[fosse76]

I have read the court documents from the above link. Does he have a case, maybe. I'd like to see Disney's filed papers in this matter. I don't think that Disney is discriminating against anyone, they are giving them a clear choice. You either can choose to look the way Disney wants you to and take the job, or not and not get hired.

I think this is just purely money grubbing at it's worst. There is no way this kid was making $1,000,000.00 and to say that he has been psychologically damaged in any way is an absolute FARCE!

Once again, certain people do not have a full grasp of the law. Yes, Disney has the right to define the appearance of its employees. However, Title VII of the Civil Rights law requires that a company cannot discriminate against certain classes of people. When it comes to company uniforms and appearance, the law REQUIRES employers to make an accomodation based on religious or cultural (though not so much culturally) beliefs. These must be reasonable. And this is where we get into trouble. What is reasonable? Clearly, based on this thread alone, no one has a consensus (except the Disney defenders, who say what ever Disney wants it should get). And that is why we have the court system. It is easy to say someone is out for a quick buck, especially in today's society. But we don't know.

As for the " You either can choose to look the way Disney wants you to and take the job, or not and not get hired" comment, I think that is narrow-minded and simplistic. You cannot resaonably expect people to compromise their religious integrity, particularly one that can be easily accomodated (in this case, the turban may be problematic, but the beard is easily allowable). Otherwise, what is to stop any employer from using it as an excuse to discriminate? Disney must comply with the laws of the United States, if they don't want to, they can go do business elsewhere! (Now see how ridiculous that sounds)?

 

[Kuzco]

Thanks for the citations, very insightful, however, they all refer to people who were currently employees of the company concerned. The man in question in our lawsuit was not an employee. He is contesting the fact that he wasn't hired. I believe the difference is very important.

Actually, I believe the same standard would apply in failure to hire cases. The EEOC holds the following position:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Act also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer (see also 29 CFR l605). Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers are examples of accommodating an employee's religious beliefs.

Employers cannot schedule examinations or other selection activities in conflict with a current or prospective employee's religious needs, inquire about an applicant's future availability at certain times, maintain a restrictive dress code, or refuse to allow observance of a Sabbath or religious holiday, unless the employer can prove that not doing so would cause an undue hardship.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-relig.html

 

[WhatJaneSays]

I'll put it right out there: I'm a very religious person. Part of my own belief is that Sunday is a day of rest; I will not work on Sundays. Because of this I'd been let go of jobs in the past and have been passed over for positions I've been more than qualified for. I've never once thought this action was religious discrimination or had the inclination to sue over it. The need of the company was something I couldn't provide, in my opinion I've always thought the companies I've worked for have the right to make that call.

Religion is a choice, not a race or disability and people need to stop acting like it is. I'd been born into a religious family and I've chosen to follow it to my own disadvantage and I'm okay with that.

 

[kimmychad]

Once again, certain people do not have a full grasp of the law. Yes, Disney has the right to define the appearance of its employees. However, Title VII of the Civil Rights law requires that a company cannot discriminate against certain classes of people. When it comes to company uniforms and appearance, the law REQUIRES employers to make an accomodation based on religious or cultural (though not so much culturally) beliefs. These must be reasonable. And this is where we get into trouble. What is reasonable? Clearly, based on this thread alone, no one has a consensus (except the Disney defenders, who say what ever Disney wants it should get). And that is why we have the court system. It is easy to say someone is out for a quick buck, especially in today's society. But we don't know.

As for the " You either can choose to look the way Disney wants you to and take the job, or not and not get hired" comment, I think that is narrow-minded and simplistic. You cannot resaonably expect people to compromise their religious integrity, particularly one that can be easily accomodated (in this case, the turban may be problematic, but the beard is easily allowable). Otherwise, what is to stop any employer from using it as an excuse to discriminate? Disney must comply with the laws of the United States, if they don't want to, they can go do business elsewhere! (Now see how ridiculous that sounds)?

psss i've got a secret for you - discrimination happens all the time. women are charged more for haircuts, and until recently, weren't even allowed on a united states combat vessel. and how many women priests do
you see? in my hospital of about 600 employees do you know how many black employees we have? 3. not exactly proportionate to the area in which i live. this is a discussion board in which people have opinions, and you talking down to everyone that you disagree with is more than a little irritating. i don't care if your a supreme court justice, your constant sputtering of title whatever gets old. what happens with the rest of disneys 50000 employees feel the need to be accomodated? and if you were to read all of the posts a member here actually knows this golddigger and they think its a good way to get rich quick.

 

[DisneyJoe]

Ok, no problem, I agree, thanks for that! However:

Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers are examples of accommodating an employee's religious beliefs.

The person in question (allegedly) applied for the same role as he had previously, as an onstage performer - and the suit is based on him not getting that role.

If he was open to a substitution, a reassignment, a transfer or a swap there would not be a case.

 

[Kuzco]

Ok, no problem, I agree, thanks for that! However:



The person in question (allegedly) applied for the same role as he had previously, as an onstage performer - and the suit is based on him not getting that role.

If he was open to a substitution, a reassignment, a transfer or a swap there would not be a case.

I agree with you for the most part. Companies have to be careful though...a transfer to a job for less pay, less prestige, undesirable hours, etc., can sometimes be viewed as discriminatory conduct on the part of the employer.

 

[cblodg]

As for the " You either can choose to look the way Disney wants you to and take the job, or not and not get hired" comment, I think that is narrow-minded and simplistic. You cannot resaonably expect people to compromise their religious integrity, particularly one that can be easily accomodated (in this case, the turban may be problematic, but the beard is easily allowable). Otherwise, what is to stop any employer from using it as an excuse to discriminate? Disney must comply with the laws of the United States, if they don't want to, they can go do business elsewhere! (Now see how ridiculous that sounds)?

Narrow minded as it may seem, that's how the world works. It's those that don't get things they want and find a way to complain and find a law that fints their situation (again another narrow minded statement but I'll say it 'cause that's how I feel). There are thousands upon thousands of Disney employees who have complied with "the Disney Look" even though they may have had objections to it. What I take exception to most, is this kid trying to get $1 MILLION dollars for a job that wasn't even gonna pay him that much. That is FRIVOLOUS in my humble opinion.

If he wants to sue to get his job back or to just get the job, that is a more noble purpose than simlply drumming up some arbitrary figure that will somehow make him feel all warm and fuzzy in side.

 

[J_Krafty24]

Once again, certain people do not have a full grasp of the law. Yes, Disney has the right to define the appearance of its employees. However, Title VII of the Civil Rights law requires that a company cannot discriminate against certain classes of people. When it comes to company uniforms and appearance, the law REQUIRES employers to make an accomodation based on religious or cultural (though not so much culturally) beliefs.

I think a big point that has been skipped over in this discussion is that he was applying for an on stage entertainment position. Not a sweep or cashier or ride op but someone who is a directly involved with a show. In that case - such as in movies, stage shows, etc - choosing to hire or not hire someone based on age, gender, race and religion (when it comes to what they will and will not wear) is perfectly acceptable. This is a case when someone must look the part.

Another point - Who is to say the position (toy solder) that he filled previously was open? It could have already been filled or could have been eliminated.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Question for those more legally astute than I....

I had a hard time understanding how this can be framed as a class action with only one claimant...so I checked my legal dictionary (wikipedia)
that seemed to support my initial feelings:

In federal civil procedure law, which has generally been accepted by most states (through adoption of state civil procedure rules paralleling the federal rules), the class action must have certain definite characteristics: (1) the class must be so large as to make individual suits impractical, (2) there must be legal or factual claims in common (3) the claims or defenses must be typical of the plaintiffs or defendants, and (4) the representative parties must adequately protect the interests of the class. In many cases, the party seeking certification must also show (5) that common issues between the class and the defendants will predominate the proceedings, as opposed to individual fact-specific conflicts between class members and the defendants and (6) that the class action, instead of individual litigation, is a superior vehicle for resolution of the disputes at hand

So agree/disagree aside....isn't there a WHOLE lot more work that needs to be done to prove this as more than an individual action involving one Sikh? Looks to be a steep hill to climb!

 

[ClemsonTigger]

I think a big point that has been skipped over in this discussion is that he was applying for an on stage entertainment position. Not a sweep or cashier or ride op but someone who is a directly involved with a show. In that case - such as in movies, stage shows, etc - choosing to hire or not hire someone based on age, gender, race and religion (when it comes to what they will and will not wear) is perfectly acceptable. This is a case when someone must look the part.

Another point - Who is to say the position (green army man?) that he filled previously was open? It could have already been filled or could have been eliminated.

It was toy soldier....and the problems stemmed from when he wanted to perform in a "face" band.

 

[J_Krafty24]

It was toy soldier....and the problems stemmed from when he wanted to perform in a "face" band.

Oops, fixed now.

 

[fosse76]

Question for those more legally astute than I....

I had a hard time understanding how this can be framed as a class action with only one claimant...so I checked my legal dictionary (wikipedia)
that seemed to support my initial feelings:

In federal civil procedure law, which has generally been accepted by most states (through adoption of state civil procedure rules paralleling the federal rules), the class action must have certain definite characteristics: (1) the class must be so large as to make individual suits impractical, (2) there must be legal or factual claims in common (3) the claims or defenses must be typical of the plaintiffs or defendants, and (4) the representative parties must adequately protect the interests of the class. In many cases, the party seeking certification must also show (5) that common issues between the class and the defendants will predominate the proceedings, as opposed to individual fact-specific conflicts between class members and the defendants and (6) that the class action, instead of individual litigation, is a superior vehicle for resolution of the disputes at hand

So agree/disagree aside....isn't there a WHOLE lot more work that needs to be done to prove this as more than an individual action involving one Sikh? Looks to be a steep hill to climb!

Anyone can file a class action lawsuit. However, it must be certified by a judge before proceeding as a class action. So a judge can determine it doesn't meet the criteria for class-action status and let them proceed merely as an individual. But I can't imagine this would qualify. While I am sure there are many Disney employees who have been fired for appearance, I doubt even a handful were for religious purposes. Usually class action status is confered for hundreds upon hundreds of people (if not thousands).

 

[Elonwy]

OK, I was in a similar situation to the details of this case but I was the one you did not re-hire a person based on their religion/.

Do i think it was the right decsion? Absolutely. Do I feel bad, Nope...not a bit. Would I do it again? You bet.

Here's the details...feel free to tell me if you believe I was wrong.

I managed a retail location and hired temporary Christmas staff. In the interview I gave my expectations of hours to be worked. Seasonal staff would work approx 20 hours per week but that could fluctuate. They would be expected to work evenings and weekends as my permanent staff would get the preferred day shifts. (seniority rules)

One girl I hired saw the schedule (which was done for 12 weeks...from the hire date until the 1st week of January) and said that she saw some days she couldn't work due to previous comitments. I try to allow my staff to have a life outside work so i told her to write down the days she couldn;t work and i would see what I could do.

She wrote down every Saturday and Sunday up until Christmas plus December 23rd to January 2nd

I asked if she could rearrange her schedule because this wasn't going to work for me. She said that she couldn;t because she goes to church on Sunday and is in charge of the church youth group on Saturdays. I told her that I could not give her those days and asked her if she wanted to take this job as is or if she wanted to leave and find somewhere that could accomodate her schedule

She said she wanted the job and would make it work. Her idea of making it work was to con my full time staff and the other seasonals into working all the weekends for her by giving reasons such as babysitting her sister, appointments that couldn't be changed, not feeling well, helping her family with things etc etc etc

The last 2 weeks I saw so many changes on the schedule that i told all my staff I would be re-writing a new schedule. Well i took this girl completely off the schedule. She asked why and i said it was too hard to schedule her so I'm just not going to...besides she had changed her schedule so much she was only working 10 hours in 2 weeks and I had other girls who wanted extra hours so they got them.

She said she liked working here and asked if she could apply again for a full time position. I said "No, I need someone who can work for certain shifts and you won't do that so I wouldn't bother wasting your time re-applying"

This was 100% due to her going to church instead of coming to work so yes, it was for religious reasons.

So...should I expect her to sue me? (I'm not at the same job...but hypothetically)

 

[fosse76]

psss i've got a secret for you - discrimination happens all the time. women are charged more for haircuts, and until recently, weren't even allowed on a united states combat vessel. and how many women priests do
you see? in my hospital of about 600 employees do you know how many black employees we have? 3. not exactly proportionate to the area in which i live. this is a discussion board in which people have opinions, and you talking down to everyone that you disagree with is more than a little irritating. i don't care if your a supreme court justice, your constant sputtering of title whatever gets old.

That would be Title VII, a law that ALL EMPLOYERS in the country MUST follow, including Disney. It is not an opinion, it is a fact. Some of the people on this board are acting as if Disney can do whatever it wants...it can't.

what happens with the rest of disneys 50000 employees feel the need to be accomodated?

Then Disney MUST accomodate them, provided they are a protected class under Title VII and the accomodations are reasonable. As I said before, what you and I see as reasonable may be two different things. Our court system is designed to determine what is reasonable.

and if you were to read all of the posts a member here actually knows this golddigger and they think its a good way to get rich quick.

A member here CLAIMS to know the claimant in question; you, nor I, don't know if he really does or doesn't. I can say I know Michael Eisner but that won't make it true.

 

[WDWFigment]

psss i've got a secret for you - discrimination happens all the time. women are charged more for haircuts, and until recently, weren't even allowed on a united states combat vessel. and how many women priests do
you see? in my hospital of about 600 employees do you know how many black employees we have? 3. not exactly proportionate to the area in which i live. this is a discussion board in which people have opinions, and you talking down to everyone that you disagree with is more than a little irritating. i don't care if your a supreme court justice, your constant sputtering of title whatever gets old. what happens with the rest of disneys 50000 employees feel the need to be accomodated? and if you were to read all of the posts a member here actually knows this golddigger and they think its a good way to get rich quick.

I think his point is that people here are so quick to have opinions about things about which they're totally uninformed. Sure, everyone is entitled to their own plausible interpretation of areas of the law, but so many people here are just making up what they think the law should be, and advocating that as the outcome for the case at hand.

There is a reason lawyers work long hours and are well-compensated for their work (go ahead with your disparaging remarks now, I know you all have them)--it's because it's a difficult job that few people are willing and able to do. I wouldn't come into a discussion about building a car engine without any knowledge and start giving my thoughts on how it should be accomplished, yet that type of thing is not uncommon when it comes to a legal discussion.

The other poster has a lot of valuable information, and more importantly, an accurate legal analysis, yet individuals continue to argue with him over the content of the law...I'd be a little frustrated by this point if I were him, too.

 

[cblodg]

OK, I was in a similar situation to the details of this case but I was the one you did not re-hire a person based on their religion/.

Do i think it was the right decsion? Absolutely. Do I feel bad, Nope...not a bit. Would I do it again? You bet.

Here's the details...feel free to tell me if you believe I was wrong.

I managed a retail location and hired temporary Christmas staff. In the interview I gave my expectations of hours to be worked. Seasonal staff would work approx 20 hours per week but that could fluctuate. They would be expected to work evenings and weekends as my permanent staff would get the preferred day shifts. (seniority rules)

One girl I hired saw the schedule (which was done for 12 weeks...from the hire date until the 1st week of January) and said that she saw some days she couldn't work due to previous comitments. I try to allow my staff to have a life outside work so i told her to write down the days she couldn;t work and i would see what I could do.

She wrote down every Saturday and Sunday up until Christmas plus December 23rd to January 2nd

I asked if she could rearrange her schedule because this wasn't going to work for me. She said that she couldn;t because she goes to church on Sunday and is in charge of the church youth group on Saturdays. I told her that I could not give her those days and asked her if she wanted to take this job as is or if she wanted to leave and find somewhere that could accomodate her schedule

She said she wanted the job and would make it work. Her idea of making it work was to con my full time staff and the other seasonals into working all the weekends for her by giving reasons such as babysitting her sister, appointments that couldn't be changed, not feeling well, helping her family with things etc etc etc

The last 2 weeks I saw so many changes on the schedule that i told all my staff I would be re-writing a new schedule. Well i took this girl completely off the schedule. She asked why and i said it was too hard to schedule her so I'm just not going to...besides she had changed her schedule so much she was only working 10 hours in 2 weeks and I had other girls who wanted extra hours so they got them.

She said she liked working here and asked if she could apply again for a full time position. I said "No, I need someone who can work for certain shifts and you won't do that so I wouldn't bother wasting your time re-applying"

This was 100% due to her going to church instead of coming to work so yes, it was for religious reasons.

So...should I expect her to sue me? (I'm not at the same job...but hypothetically)

Anything could happen, but I'd say no. As I have always felt, if someone is honest and upfront with the expectations of the job (requirements such as time and dress), then they are realeased from these legal issues. I sited one example at a job where I was lower management and my boss fired someone for attire issues. I don't know what the situation is now (that was a year ago) as I'm not with that company any more, I moved on up at a different company.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Even assuming the guy really is just trying to squeeze some money out of Disney, that doesn't settle anything about the underlying legal questions. A person can raise an issue for the wrong reasons, with the wrong motivations, and still (accidentally) be right.

I wouldn't be happy to see this guy win monetary damages out of the company. I would be pleased to see them told that (IF it is their practice) religious discrimination in hiring (or discrimination against activities or clothing related to established religions, since a lot of people are distinguishing between them) is unacceptable for "show" purposes.