The "Disney Look"

[wedway71]

Well,I am willing to bet that throughout the history of WDW there has been many lawsuits agianst the Mouse for Apperanace issues.

All I know is that they must have great lawyers due to the fact that since 1971 ,I have NEVER seen a single CM with a beard,Tat,purple hair, or Turban.

I dont think this lawsuit will change that either.

 

[AEfx]

It all depends on what judge, what jurisdiction, what the community's feelings of the moment are, etc. I'm sure it has been brought up before in legal terms, but perhaps not in this climate. Many companies are scared to death of offending Islamic religions right now in the current political situation (look at the beating Obama took last week when two local staffers moved two women with head scarves off the platform behind him for the photo op).

We really need to keep perspective here that Disney is just a business like any other business. Same rules apply, in the eyes of the law there is no difference between the Magic Kingdom and Six Flags or a run down local carvinal.

I have a strong feeling we'll see Disney settle the matter for an undislosed amount (probably 10-20 grand or something like that), but it would be very interesting if actually ever brought to trial, especially in the current climate.

AEfx

 

[wedway71]

I will say this..... The Disney Look is recognized.

I remember being about 8 or 9 and walking down Main Street and asking my Garndma why all the boys who worked there had short haircuts that all looked the same.

 

[AEfx]

I will say this..... The Disney Look is recognized.

Of course it is. But not necessarily by the law.

"Judge, we move to dismiss on the basis that Walt Disney World is Magical."

"Case dismissed - if we were in Fantasyland. But this is the real world. Motion denied."



AEfx

 

[ClemsonTigger]

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.

Worse than that....it's what the jury thinks....and if people think the law is getting bent in this discussion...just wait until a jury gets hold of it! :brick:

 

[unkadug]

Worse than that....it's what the jury thinks....and if people think the law is getting bent in this discussion...just wait until a jury gets hold of it! :brick:

Jury's don't decide the law, nor do they decide how a law is to be interpreted or applied. They simply decide the status of guilt.

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's their right, it's all part of the balance of powers that this country is based upon.

The legislators write the laws, the judges decide how the law is to be interpreted and applied.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Jury's don't decide the law, nor do they decide how a law is to be interpreted or applied. They simply decide the status of guilt.

QUOTE]

I must be going to the wrong courtrooms then....
By the book, you are 110% correct. In application, I can't say I agree with you, particularly when it comes to tort law.

 

[progroupie]

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.


But that's not really what I mean. I'm talking about visible tattoos that couldn't be covered by a Main Street costume or any other clothes for that matter. Such as neck tattoos, behind the ear tattoos, etc. Disney requires entertainment to follow the majority of Disney Look guidelines but they're willing to make exceptions because of the costumes. Men still have to shave, no facial piercings, etc. So why doesn't a tattoo matter when blue hair would? Also Disney doesn't allow people to cover tattoos with make-up or bandages for regular onstage roles, people do it, but it isn't technically allowed. I'm just saying that's an example of Disney being willing to work around something but not other things.

 

[cblodg]

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.

I understood what you meant and forgive me for adding in my interpretations of this law. Lets face it though, what is being debated here is EXACTLY what will be debated in the court room (should it get that far). In this age of legislating from the bench, each argument has it's merrits.

One side will no doubt stick with Title VII as their bread and butter. "Well Title VII says this, so this is the way it has to be." From what I have read of the court documents, so far, he claims to have numberous witnesses and yet only ONE filed an afidavit to that effect.

The other side will have the same arguments that I, and several others, have put forth. Disney has a very PUBLIC standard for it's employees to follow. Disney has also made accomodations for him. I think what is more appauling (if it is true) is what this kid had to do after he was pulled from a performing role (menial work).

What also bothers me is the $1,000,000.00 this kid is asking for. Any reasonable judge will look at the job description, pay for this position, merrits of case law and say that 1 million is gold digging. There is no way he was gonna make 1 million dollars at this job. And psycological stress doesn't nearly come close to what this guy had to endure. I've seen psychological stress and I know psychological arguments. ANY psychologist that tries to say this kid was some how damaged by this incident will be questions up the wazoo on the merrits of their findings.

All in all the discussion has been great here. I'll follow this case closely, as I hope this discussion forum will as well.

 

[Sam02]

I have a legal question to ask. With who does the burden of proof rest with to prove either he did or did not reapply?

 

[The Mom]

I have a legal question to ask. With who does the burden of proof rest with to prove either he did or did not reapply?

It's pretty hard to prove a negative, so I would guess that the plaintiff would have to prove that he applied. After all, I could say that I applied for, and was denied, a position, and if the burden of proof was on WDW, how could they "prove" that I hadn't? It would be up to me to provide evidence that I had, indeed, applied. That might include getting a subpoena to get WDW to produce employment records.

I'm sure one of our legal eagles will give a more accurate answer.

 

[kcw]

Also Disney doesn't allow people to cover tattoos with make-up or bandages for regular onstage roles, people do it, but it isn't technically allowed.

eh... I'm fairly sure that if your normal costume doesn't cover it, the official policy is to let you either wear long sleeves or pants, or cover it with heavy duty make-up. In fact I think I once came across something somewhere on the portal where it even reccommended a few brands of make-up- one being Dermablend. If I cared more about proving my point, I'd go try to find it on the hub, but I don't, sorry. Granted, I'm not positive on this, as I don't have any tattoos, but I'm pretty sure that's what I have heard as far as the "official policy." :shrug:

 

[MagCynic]

Isn't it a little excessive to be suing for 1 million dollars? He's trying to make it out like his religion is being attacked when it's just the way he dresses and grooms himself. If I went to casting with a beard and long hair for example they'd turn me away too. It has nothing to do with religion.

 

[AEfx]

Isn't it a little excessive to be suing for 1 million dollars? He's trying to make it out like his religion is being attacked when it's just the way he dresses and grooms himself. If I went to casting with a beard and long hair for example they'd turn me away too. It has nothing to do with religion.

But it's so traumatic for him! If he shaves, or dares take that hat off, God will punish him and the 17 virgins won't be up in heaven waiting for him! Certainly that's worth a million bucks!

AEfx, not feeling especially tolerant today, sue me LOL

 

[LAPVLB]

eh... I'm fairly sure that if your normal costume doesn't cover it, the official policy is to let you either wear long sleeves or pants, or cover it with heavy duty make-up. In fact I think I once came across something somewhere on the portal where it even reccommended a few brands of make-up- one being Dermablend. If I cared more about proving my point, I'd go try to find it on the hub, but I don't, sorry. Granted, I'm not positive on this, as I don't have any tattoos, but I'm pretty sure that's what I have heard as far as the "official policy." :shrug:

Yep, you're right about the heavy duty makeup. My interviewer told me the deal with the makeup, as did my "welcome packet." Even though I don't even have a tattoo

If I went to casting with a beard and long hair for example they'd turn me away too. It has nothing to do with religion.

Yeah, that sounds about right. I wish this would stop... :brick:

 

[Hrudey3032]

Yeah, that sounds about right. I wish this would stop... :brick:[/quote]

Why should this stop?
I have been a store manager and I gotta say the way a person looks is always one of the first things a person doing a interview notices right or wrong it is just the way it is. If you come in with a scraggly beard,long hair,tattoos,baggy clothes and piercings I am more apt to pass as you are presenting a image for a company and lets face it alot of people will leave when they see a employee looking like that.I also hate going in to businesses now and seeing guys with their pants drooping,hair unkept,and the grills(gold teeth for some of you who may not understand) you see.The tongue piercings that make it so you can't understand a thing said,wearing the way to revealing clothes,and don't get me started by how both sexes talk nowadays.:hurl:

So if you want to look a certain way fine live your life the way you want but if a company has a set guideline for appearance then either comform or find a different job.

 

[progroupie]

eh... I'm fairly sure that if your normal costume doesn't cover it, the official policy is to let you either wear long sleeves or pants, or cover it with heavy duty make-up. In fact I think I once came across something somewhere on the portal where it even reccommended a few brands of make-up- one being Dermablend. If I cared more about proving my point, I'd go try to find it on the hub, but I don't, sorry. Granted, I'm not positive on this, as I don't have any tattoos, but I'm pretty sure that's what I have heard as far as the "official policy." :shrug:

You could very well be right, I was originally hired by Disney awhile ago so things may have changed since then and since I don't have tattoos I wouldn't know the current policies. I just know that when I was hired they told us it wasn't acceptable to use make-up or bandages and I knew someone who was turned away for a visible neck tattoo that couldn't be hidden by any costume.

 

[DancingSkeleton]

I know they don't want any tattoos showing. I didn't know they let you cover it with make-up. I had an interview a week ago and since I have a tattoo on my forearm, the lady interviewing me said I only had a few options because I would have to be someplace that allows long sleeve costumes. I asked about the patches that you can put on and she said Disney doesn't allow them.

I completely understand that I have limited opportunities because this is a permanent thing that can never be removed (I guess it could, I just wouldn't want it to be). At least the man in this case has a choice of whether to shave or not. Or he might feel that it is permanent as well in which case he should feel lucky that he was even considered the first time around.

I know I feel lucky that I'm still a possibility, especially because there are so few areas where I can work (basically it's either Fantasyland or World of Disney in DTD). I thought they were going to dismiss me when my interviewer found out about it. I think the most important thing that Disney takes judgment on is not anything really discriminatory, but whether or not one has the "Disney Attitude." If they really seem to be right for the part, it appears that Disney will work around any problematic appearances and offer a way to hide it which will still accommodate their guidelines.

 

[DancingSkeleton]

I also have a really strong feeling that this guy isn't going to go anywhere in this lawsuit.

I read that the U.S. had a beef with the way Disney was picking their employees by appearance, but Disney won the battle and is now an exception to discriminatory laws because of the way the parks work - the whole "on stage" and "experience" thing.

But it's a free world, and like many people already said, it's his choice to take out a lawsuit, even if it might be a stupid idea and cost him money in the long run.

BTW, one million dollars? I think that's a little excessive... There was no physical harm, no injuries while working or anything, so there wouldn't even be coverage money for "pain and suffering," which is what a lot of lawsuits are about. The other way he could estimate amount of money to potentially win is figuring out the amount of money lost - you know, by not working, how much money he could've made - I doubt any on stage employee is going to earn one million dollars within their career.

I had a taxi driver in Orlando who was Muslim, and he was telling me that he can't be a waiter because his religion forbids him to serve alcohol. So instead of being a waiter, he became a taxi driver. It's as simple as that - another, option the man had, which has been stated many times, is that he could have found a different job! One that doesn't have him sacrificing his beliefs....

I feel like the world has become spoiled, and they try to get every thing they think they deserve, which they don't because they haven't done anything to earn it except for not having common sense.
It's the reason why all coffee cups say "caution, contents may be hot;" People argue that the company never warned them so the company gets sued. Well duh it's hot, it's coffee!

 

[fosse76]

I also have a really strong feeling that this guy isn't going to go anywhere in this lawsuit.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know the true facts of the case, only the allegations.

I read that the U.S. had a beef with the way Disney was picking their employees by appearance, but Disney won the battle and is now an exception to discriminatory laws because of the way the parks work - the whole "on stage" and "experience" thing.

Disney didn't win any such battle. And the "exception" you are talking about is built into the law and had absolutely nothing to do with Disney.

But it's a free world, and like many people already said, it's his choice to take out a lawsuit, even if it might be a stupid idea and cost him money in the long run.

BTW, one million dollars? I think that's a little excessive... There was no physical harm, no injuries while working or anything, so there wouldn't even be coverage money for "pain and suffering," which is what a lot of lawsuits are about. The other way he could estimate amount of money to potentially win is figuring out the amount of money lost - you know, by not working, how much money he could've made - I doubt any on stage employee is going to earn one million dollars within their career.

Let's assume that the plaintiff truely believes Disney purposefully did not hire him based on his appearance. He now has every right to challenge Disney and whether or not they are legally entitled to apply the exemption in anti-discrimination laws (what I hate about this case is that he was a performer...it'd be much better for legal precedent if he were a ride operator). The amount he is suing for is actual damages and punitive damages. Also, they have filed this as a class-action, so the money would be distributed among the class (if any). If it is certified and he wins, the money will be divide among the attorneys and the class.

I had a taxi driver in Orlando who was Muslim, and he was telling me that he can't be a waiter because his religion forbids him to serve alcohol. So instead of being a waiter, he became a taxi driver. It's as simple as that - another, option the man had, which has been stated many times, is that he could have found a different job! One that doesn't have him sacrificing his beliefs....

Your example is irrelevant. The plaintiff's religion doesn't prevent him from doing his job at Disney...it prevents him from shaving his beard. It's not the same thing. It should also be important to stress that Disney's appearance policies are based on Walt Disney's own discriminatory practices...like it or not the man was practically a fascist.

I feel like the world has become spoiled, and they try to get every thing they think they deserve, which they don't because they haven't done anything to earn it except for not having common sense.

Definitely true. Oddly, this mentality derives from the baby-boomers, who passed it on to their children (and who are now passing it onto theirs).

It's the reason why all coffee cups say "caution, contents may be hot;" People argue that the company never warned them so the company gets sued. Well duh it's hot, it's coffee!

That however was not a frivolous case...and McDonald's had only themselves to blame. The coffee was kept at a temperature that was unsuitable for consumption. Here is a link to the facts of the coffee case, so you don't spout baseless assumptions about it again:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm