The "Disney Look"

[durangojim]

My apoligies for not reading through all 21 pages of this thread but for me the argument can be summed up this way:
If someone applied to work at Disney who's religious belief stated that he/she should be nude all the time, would that person have any less valid an argument than the person who couldn't wear his head wrap or whatever it was? I don't think so. Disney has an appearance code, if you fall within this code then you can be hired or remain as an employee, if not then you're terminated or not hired. Pretty simple. It is not someone right to be able to work wherever they want, there are certain standards that need to be me, and it is the employer who sets them. Should overwight girls be allowed to sue because they weren't hired as exotic dancers? What about average height people with no ability who want to play in the NBA? These examples may be extreme, but they are the same as the guy who is suing Disney. If he complied with the "Disney Look" and then was let go because of his religion, that would be one thing, but not in this case.

 

[fosse76]

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/.

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)

She COULD sue...whether or not she could win is entirely different. In this situation, other than attending church on Sunday, there doesn't seem to be any religious tennents that require her to teach the church youth group on saturday. A "reasonable" accomodation in this particular case, at most, would be to allow her an hour or two to go to church and she can come in afterwards. After all, you were hiring , essentially, weekend help (for simplicity-sake). Being there on the weekend was essential for the job function (unlike being facial-hair free). The purpose for the job was that she was needed on a weekend day. But also, keep in mind, that Title VII only applies to companies with 15 or more employees. And each incident where discrimination is alleged is very different. In your case, you wouldn't have to worry. You can never really compare two different companies in this way...it just doesn't work.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

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.

But in fact the law IS NOT black and white. IF this were so clear cut as to content of the law, either the judge would have thrown out the complaint or Disney would have settled out of court. Lawyers on both sides think their understanding of "the content of the law" makes them right, otherwise we would not be discussing this.

Then again, I thought the law on gun control was clear....

 

[WDWFigment]

But in fact the law IS NOT black and white. IF this were so clear cut as to content of the law, either the judge would have thrown out the complaint or Disney would have settled out of court. Lawyers on both sides think their understanding of "the content of the law" makes them right, otherwise we would not be discussing this.

Then again, I thought the law on gun control was clear....

Sorry, I should've thrown in the word plausible down there again (I did earlier in the post to avoid this). There are plenty of people here simply making things up, or advocating their view of what the law should be as what the law actually is. This definitely is not a matter of black letter law, you're right, but most of the argument here is missing the areas that would actually be in dispute in court.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

But in fact the law IS NOT black and white. IF this were so clear cut as to content of the law, either the judge would have thrown out the complaint or Disney would have settled out of court. Lawyers on both sides think their understanding of "the content of the law" makes them right, otherwise we would not be discussing this.

Then again, I thought the law on gun control was clear....

You're right that there are questions as to the application of the law unsettled here, Dave. (Otherwise, there'd be no case, as you say.)

But there seem to be a lot of posters here who don't think that there's ANY basis to ANY question regarding discriminatory hiring practices by a corporation. Posts that basically come down to "Disney sets the rules, take it or leave it" are just people's opinions on how things should work and not based in any serious understanding of the law.

I think that's where the frustration by people like fosse76 and WDWFigment comes in. A lot (but not all) of the debate here is completely detached from questions of the law, and is more like people taking their own opinions and assuming the law agrees.

Like I said earlier, I'm not a lawyer and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I've tried to clearly separate my own opinions here from the legal discussion.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Understood.

For an interesting corollary to this thread, read through the following:

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showpost.php?p=2965722&postcount=1

In the article, you see the application of strict Disney rules, some of which seem arbitrary and unnessary, mixed in with someone who knows the rules but chooses to ignore or bend them as much as possible.

And while the article may be taken at first blush as anti Disney, he acknowledges his role in it and doesn't demand that Disney bend to his personal preferences or choices.

 

[progroupie]

That's not quite true. Disney does not change it's requirements...that is the main contention of this thread.

When it comes to entertainment however, personal opinion is ALWAYS involved and ALWAYS changes. Why are there tryouts for plays, musical groups etc? A judgement is made by an individual or small group as to what they want. If that judgement were the same, you would have the same few actors in all the roles, the same musicians chosen, the same vocalists. But no, you have to meet the preferences of the person or group selecting at that moment. And the more judges or judging groups, the greater the variety of preferences. If you are in entertainment, it is surprising that you don't recognize and understand that. Tryouts, judges and opinions have always been a part of that "life".

Same situation with a baseball umpire. Commentators and players talk about a certain umpires "strike zone"...and it does differ between umpires. Do the umpires believe they are altering the rules....no they don't. They all use the same definition of a strike zone. When it comes to human judgement, there is always variability.

BUT....that is far different from saying that person A can have long hair and person B cannot, he can wear earrings but the other one can't. Those type issues, the ones at the root of this case are black and white and are consistent in their application.

Disney doesn't change their stance frequently? That's a newsflash to me as a CM.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Disney doesn't change their stance frequently? That's a newsflash to me as a CM.

Depends on how you look at it. They are very rigid when it comes to "The Book" of requirements.

You were talking before about judging for talent etc. for entertainment, that is a whole different thing that I discussed previously. I can fully agree with you that that process is inconsistent/unfair/constantly changing, whatever, but that is a whole different thing.

The company requirements (right or wrong), meant to achieve a level of uniformity and show combined with union work rules make for a lot of rigidity.
You still may not agree, but I hope you understand the differences of the two areas.

 

[fosse76]

My apoligies for not reading through all 21 pages of this thread but for me the argument can be summed up this way:
If someone applied to work at Disney who's religious belief stated that he/she should be nude all the time, would that person have any less valid an argument than the person who couldn't wear his head wrap or whatever it was? I don't think so. .

No. Employers only have to make a reasonable accomodation. I don't know of any religion that insists its followers be nude. As such, often times, society's standards will dictate what is reasonable. Wearing a "head wrap" or having a beard is NOT an unresaonable demand if it is part of a person's religion (the head wrap, though, can bring in more safety issues, such as line of sight). Being nude is not societally acceptable (and mostly illegal).

Disney has an appearance code, if you fall within this code then you can be hired or remain as an employee, if not then you're terminated or not hired. Pretty simple. It is not someone right to be able to work wherever they want, there are certain standards that need to be me, and it is the employer who sets them.

Their appearance code, however, must fall within the parameters of the law. Because the issue in question is facial hair as part of a religious requirement, Disney must justify that the discrimination is necessary from a business standpoint, since religious belief is a protected class. Now that doesn't mean if they allow him they have to allow everyone. Courts have generally upheld dress codes, but when a religion dictates appearance, the company must reasonably find a solution. What if Disney decided they were going to only hire Catholics? Or not hire atheists? Neither has anything to do with the job function. Essentially by denying a Sikh practitioner the accomodation, they are saying they will not hire anyone with that religious belief. Does that mean he can have any job he wants? No. But that's where the courts come in.

Should overwight girls be allowed to sue because they weren't hired as exotic dancers? What about average height people with no ability who want to play in the NBA? These examples may be extreme, but they are the same as the guy who is suing Disney. If he complied with the "Disney Look" and then was let go because of his religion, that would be one thing, but not in this case.

They are not the same. Both of your examples have extreme flaws. First, for the the exotic dancer, weight is NOT a protected class, and as a performer, they can dictate the appearance with an exemption in the law. The basketball player can be said to not be able to perform the job functions properly. I can't walk into a hospital and apply to be a doctor without medical training. If you can't do the job then that is easily grounds for not hiring or termination. The guy in this case was from my understanding covered by a costume, so Disney would not be able to justify the authenticity exemption on him. They also apparently accomodated him for one season, and he wasn't re-hired. The decision of one person has set-up Disney for this lawsuit, and the case will determine who that one person is. The Disney Company itself may be very diverse and accomodating, but one person's actions on behalf of the Company turns it into the company having done it.

But as I have stated before in this thread, we do not know what went on when he was allegedly not re-hired. The discovery phase of the litigation will determine what, if anything, can be proven.

 

[fosse76]

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.

Exactly, and it happens more often than you think (the infamous McDonald's coffee incident, the Anna Nicole Smith inheritence case).

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.[/quote]

Personally, I'm all for punitive damages, but it should be more like a fine, where the money goes to the government as opposed to the individual who sued. As such, it wouldn't be an award and the lawyers would not be able to collect fees from it.

 

[kcw]

Posts that basically come down to "Disney sets the rules, take it or leave it" are just people's opinions on how things should work and not based in any serious understanding of the law.

I think that's where the frustration by people like fosse76 and WDWFigment comes in. A lot (but not all) of the debate here is completely detached from questions of the law, and is more like people taking their own opinions and assuming the law agrees.

Not quite. My dad's a lawyer; I've grown up with legalese as a second language. And no matter how many time fosse or anyone else quotes Title VII, it's not going to change- and I was quite aware of what that law said before this began.....people should not be so quick to assume that since someone's opinion differs from theirs, that they just don't have a "serious understanding of the law"

Some people simply believe that since Disney is an entertainment company, and must preserve "show," that they should be exempt. That is their opinion, and it doesn't mean they don't understand the law. Personally, I feel that whether they are obligated to accomodate or not, they already did. That is my opinion, and it certainly doesn't mean that I don't understand what's going on.

I can't help but feel a bit sorry for this guy- if a CM contradicted another CM, who had already approved him to be hired, that's definitely no good, and is not his fault. However, I can't believe that this is being done for any other reason than money. $1,000,000??????? He would make what, $2000 TOPS??? (sorry, don't want to do the math).... I know i've already said it, but this world has become way to PC and it's driving me nuts.


sidenote- fosse, are you a dancer?

 

[Hrudey3032]

I cant believe this is still going on.23 pages of mostly the same argument.Lets move on from this until this actually even happens(court case) i mean it appears we are at a impasse:brick: and beating a dead hors.Both sides present compelling arguments but its time to put this one to bed :snore:

 

[progroupie]

Depends on how you look at it. They are very rigid when it comes to "The Book" of requirements.

You were talking before about judging for talent etc. for entertainment, that is a whole different thing that I discussed previously. I can fully agree with you that that process is inconsistent/unfair/constantly changing, whatever, but that is a whole different thing.

The company requirements (right or wrong), meant to achieve a level of uniformity and show combined with union work rules make for a lot of rigidity.
You still may not agree, but I hope you understand the differences of the two areas.

But it isn't really a different thing since this individual was applying for entertainment. Here's a comparable example, I knew several people in entertainment who had visible tattoos that weren't able to be hidden by regular clothes, tattoos on the neck area and such. But since they were in full costume Disney allowed them to have these tattoos even though it contradicts Disney Look. However you couldn't dye your hair an unnatural color even though it essentially didn't matter because you were still in full costume. So do you get what I mean when I say there are discrepencies and I think this is one of them?

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Not quite. My dad's a lawyer; I've grown up with legalese as a second language. And no matter how many time fosse or anyone else quotes Title VII, it's not going to change- and I was quite aware of what that law said before this began.....people should not be so quick to assume that since someone's opinion differs from theirs, that they just don't have a "serious understanding of the law"

I wasn't including you in that category.

There have been good posts on both sides of this. Even though you've sided with Disney in this thread, your posts have gone beyond the basic "Disney can do what they want because that's the way it is" logic, so my comments weren't aimed at you. I appreciate thoughtful contributions from anyone, not just people who agree with me.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

But it isn't really a different thing since this individual was applying for entertainment. Here's a comparable example, I knew several people in entertainment who had visible tattoos that weren't able to be hidden by regular clothes, tattoos on the neck area and such. But since they were in full costume Disney allowed them to have these tattoos even though it contradicts Disney Look. However you couldn't dye your hair an unnatural color even though it essentially didn't matter because you were still in full costume. So do you get what I mean when I say there are discrepencies and I think this is one of them?

Yes, I understand what you are saying and agree with you. And at least as far at entertainment is concerned, there is probably more gray area. As with this case originally, if you are "bottled up" in a full Toy Soldier costume...the only real requirement is height and being able to play trumpet. If you are friend of Beast or Pluto, who knows, and depending on the talent pool, I'm sure exceptions are made. but when a Toy Soldier performer wants to be part of a "face" brass choir, or a friend of Beast decides they want to be a friend of Prince Charming....then it gets messy if concessions were made in the first place.

I have no idea how many CM's are in entertainment, or how many have particular skills like musicians or dancers.....but I imagine at certain times, like
Christmas where extra musicians are needed....there may be "spot shortages" of talent.....maybe only 60 candidates for 50 trumpet positions...that also increase some people to make "compromises" or "concessions". (that may come back and bite them)

No question that this is not a "clean" decision, otherwise, as I said before, a judge would have thrown out the claim or Disney would have settled out of court. Assuming the information about mixed signals from different supervisors is correct....it is then a matter of their error in a general business operations sense...not systemic discrimination. While it was handled badly (as described in the filing) it is no different that the situation you were involved in was handled badly.....there is just no grounds to sue for that.

 

[lwalker8]

Many of Disney's employees are considered actors in a stage show. Discrimination of actors appearances is not protected under any law...you cannot sue the director of a show for not casting you in a role written for a black man because you were a white woman. That is not racism or sexism, this is not discrimination. It is casting. And this law suit will be thrown out or simply won by Disney if it gets that far. If he wants to be in a show in World Showcase he might get by wearing his religions required garb in a show. But if he wants to audition for a role in the local production of Bye Bye Birdie he will surely be turned down for a role if he demands he be allowed to keep his beard and wear a turban.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Considered by whom though?

 

[Cattman96]

This conversation is good for explaining what each of thinks, but what the law says one way or the other doesn't really matter. It's what the judge thinks. Todays judges seem to legislate from the bench, instead of following the law itself.

 

[AEfx]

Many of Disney's employees are considered actors in a stage show. Discrimination of actors appearances is not protected under any law...you cannot sue the director of a show for not casting you in a role written for a black man because you were a white woman. That is not racism or sexism, this is not discrimination. It is casting.

This seems to be the fundamental place where misunderstandings are happening here.

As Disney fans, this is how we see it. Anyone "on stage" is part of the show, Disney magic, yadda yadda. We all know and love it. Thing is, some of us are having a problem stepping back as fans and understanding that to the outside world that really doesn't matter in a legal sense.

If this comes to a trial, Disney *would* have to prove how their, say, cashier at a fast food (pardon me, "quick service", hehe) is any different than a cashier at any other fast food place (McDonalds, etc.) any place else in the country. Saying "We are magical!" isn't going to cut it in a court of law.

That's not saying they still wouldn't win, or that I don't think they should, but depending on the judge and what arguments are allowed, etc., just like any trial, but acting like Disney has some inalienable right to declare themselves "special" because of the "magic" and "show" is just not true.

AEfx

 

[kcw]

Here's a comparable example, I knew several people in entertainment who had visible tattoos that weren't able to be hidden by regular clothes, tattoos on the neck area and such. But since they were in full costume Disney allowed them to have these tattoos even though it contradicts Disney Look. However you couldn't dye your hair an unnatural color even though it essentially didn't matter because you were still in full costume. So do you get what I mean when I say there are discrepencies and I think this is one of them?

But see that's actually not very different- if someone has a tattoo (who works in another department besides entertainment), they will likely hire them- if say a main street costume covers it, that's great. If not though, they'll make them wear long sleeves (which to me isn't worth it in FL!!), or cover it up with heavy make-up. And no, they wouldn't let them dye their hair blue. In ent, they'll hire them, but they'd make them cover it up. Since the costume covers it, they're fine. If they were in DCT as an animator though, and it showed on their arm, they'd make them cover it with make-up. Looks like the same situation in both departments.

I wasn't including you in that category.

There have been good posts on both sides of this. Even though you've sided with Disney in this thread, your posts have gone beyond the basic "Disney can do what they want because that's the way it is" logic, so my comments weren't aimed at you. I appreciate thoughtful contributions from anyone, not just people who agree with me.

thanks for clarifying

This conversation is good for explaining what each of thinks, but what the law says one way or the other doesn't really matter. It's what the judge thinks. Todays judges seem to legislate from the bench, instead of following the law itself.

that is so very true

That's not saying they still wouldn't win, or that I don't think they should, but depending on the judge and what arguments are allowed, etc., just like any trial, but acting like Disney has some inalienable right to declare themselves "special" because of the "magic" and "show" is just not true.

AEfx

I would bet money though, that a similar argument has been brought to ccourt before, and that Disney has won it- and with that exact excuse. Whether it will happen again, who knows, but I would definitely bet that it's happened before