The "Disney Look"

[Wilt Dasney]

This is not on the same level, as no one would be unduly burdened or endangered by WDW "relaxing" the rules in order to accomodate this man's religious requirements.

That pretty much sums up where my sympathies lie on issues like this. The argument that Disney's need to preserve its show trumps everything else just seems shallow to me. It might be legal, but that doesn't mean it deserves much applause.

While I'm not wild about using the legal system for every grievance, I wouldn't shed any tears if they were forced to bend on this. I'd personally rather see CMs that represent a wider spectrum of humanity on vacation. It wouldn't detract from my vacation at all to see CM's with beards, tattoos and ponytails as long as they knew how to smile.

 

[kcw]

How did a racist like you ever get out of scool?

oh dear heavens... is that really necessary?? Nobody has said a darn thing on this thread that could be considered racist. Ignorant? possibly. Uninformed? yes definitely. Not racist though.

I'm not ready to completely claim that Disney is right though. I think a lot of people need to see it a different way. I keep reading "he can choose not to work for Disney." I'm going to draw an analogy here. Many of us here are probably Christians right? Okay, so let's say that hypothetically, Christians had to have blue hair (ridiculous, I know. but stick with it for my point). Would all of us that chimed in "working for disney is a privilege, he should shave and take off his turban" have the same response in this situation? Maybe this guy always dreamed of working at Disney. Maybe he heard from people like us that it's a great place to work. Maybe some CP raves of working at Disney made him want to work there so badly, as badly as many of us do. Is it fair that it is not an option for him at all, solely because of something his religion requires him to do? How many of you here (many of who I know work or have worked or plan on working at Disney) wouldn't put up a fight in my hypothetical blue haired christian situation?

I wanted to grow up and work at Disney since I was 7. I have entries in my elementary school journals about it. I now have my dream job and love every second of it. BUT I also have a fairly strict religion. I have given up (or chosen not to participate in) many things in my life. In fact, today is my 21st birthday- am I going to a bar to do a power hour tonight? Nope. I don't drink. When people have a religion that they truly believe in and care about, they many times have to make sacrifices for it. That is part of religion. If for some reason my religion required some sort of dress or practice that wouldn't work with Disney's standards, you better believe that I'd give up the opportunity to work at Disney, because of my religion. Like someone mentioned, his religion is not forcing him to work at Disney, so he needs to decide which is more important- his religion, or a job. I would never expect Disney to make exceptions for me and my religion, especially since they are very clear cut from the beginning about what they require.

Disney DOES discriminate based on religion and nationality though!!

Candle light procession etc!!!!! how is that not favouring Christianity????
Yup, and having the Harlem Gospel Choir perform favors african americans, having Pere Noel there favors the french...in fact, there's no "Santa" figure represented in China- we're discriminating against the Chinese! oh wait.... :lookaroun I'm sorry but there's a point where it gets old- when everything that anyone does somehow favors one group and discriminates another. I'm sure that in HKDL or TDL they have days where they celebrate holidays or events that are specific to their cultures. If I visited, I wouldn't feel like Americans were being discriminated against- that is their country! This is America, and since Christianity is the largest religion practiced in our country, it would be ridiculous not to see it mentioned (for lack of a better word) in our parks.

They allow wedding rings. They allow the American flag to be worn and no others!!! This all detracts from the themeing.

If wedding rings detract from the theming to you, then you're missing out on a whole bunch of stuff in the parks

Yes i understand that Disney has guidelines, and i find many of them completely discriminatory.

I'm not sure if you work for Disney or not, but it's interesting that those who don't, feel that their guidelines are discriminatory. However, there are many people who do work for the company on this board, who don't find any problem with them. Wouldn't they be the better judges as to the fairness of Disney's policies?


The facts here, are that he was employed WITH the beard and turban. And then fired him part way through employment. That is the issue here.

Actually, it seems as if those aren't the facts. Debates seem to grow exponentially out of control when people start "stating facts" that aren't true


And please don't even get me started on the 'he can work somewhere else if he wants to' argument! That is just truly pathetic. A free democratic society allows anyone to work anywhere, as long as they are capable of performing the job.

But like I said before, anyone who is truly devoted to their religion realizes that sometimes they will have to make sacrifices. The world will never cater towards each individual's beliefs- it's just not possible, and it's unrealistic to expect it.

responses in bold in quote...

 

[fosse76]

I dont work for Disney yet but I have been in Management and had a stint as a Regional Human Resources Manager for a large Retailer.

If Disney has a clear definition of the Disney Look in the Cast Member Handbook than the guy has no chance.
If he was hired and he accepted employement with the Disney Look guidelines in place he has no chance.

I will stand by my statements, though some of it could probably have been worded better (I am at work, so what can I say). Does the turban-wearing cashier in Tomorrowland ruin the themeing? No. And it is up to Disney to prove that it does (which is why I brough up the NASA example). Could it ruin the themeing of Main Street? Perhaps, but again, Disney has to prove that the cashier is an actor putting on a show and not a cashier. And even so, they could easily move him elsewhere in the company if ultimately in the eyes of the law Disney was deemed correct. But since under a religious claim he would likely win, it's doubtful that would be an acceptable compromise. As has been stated, this is a religious requirement for his chosen religion. And as such he is protected. This isn't Joe College trying to win a beard growing contest, which Disney would legally be able to fire over.

Maybe Disney can make an arrangement for him to work offstage but they do not have to.

Actually, they do. They are required by law to reasonably accomodate his religious belief. What if Disney tried to argue that Main Street must have all white employees? What if tomorrow, the Pope said all Catholics MUST wear a cross visibly over there clothes? Or, as someone else gave as an example, that they had to dye their hair blue. Disney is required by law to make a reasonable accomodation. They simply cannot fire the employees.

As for the argument that he chose to work for Disney, so he should adhere to policy is not even remotely an acceptable response. Disney CHOSE to operate in the United States, and as such must follow the law. And the law is clear. Even when a company has a dress code, they must allow religious exemptions unless they can prove it to be an undue burden. Can Disney fire an employee who refuses to wear a particular costume based on a religious objection? Maybe, but only after a reasonable attempt to find a costume or non-costumed location fails to yield a position. Disney KNEW and made accomodations for the guy in the original post. It seemed as if a last minute decision by a manager brought this result. If so, then Disney is completely liable.

In summary, despite Disney's dress code, they are required by law to make an accomodation based on legitimate religious belief. And that, my friends, is the underlying difference between this case, and, let's say, a college intern who refuses to remove her nose ring. Unless she can prove her religion requires it, Disney would have the right to refuse employment to her.

I am actually reminded of a story I was told by an HR manager, who, after interviewing several qualified individuals for one position, he had to eliminate the entire candidate pool because one of them nonchalantly mentioned he was gay. Afraid of a potential suit if this guy wasn;t hired, they eliminated everyone and started over. It's a fact of life that people are going to discriminate for one reason or another, and the law is attempting to make it fair for everyone. Why should Joe College get to work at Disney when Joe Muslim cannot, simply because he has a beard which is required by his religion? Disney has to prove that such discrimination is essential to their image, which I think everyone would agree, would not be a good thing.

 

[TigerLily_CM]

Aftre reading this article...I can't believe people are even arguing over this. There is no firing, no racism...quite the opposite, he was hired, allowed to wear his beard and turban and when his contract ended he left...happens to lots of people every year but they don't sue

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2008/06/sikh-musician-s.html

Disney did not fire him. He was hired as a University band Member for a seasonal position he knew he was only hired for the season and the next year he did not even re-apply for the job yet he's upset he didn't get called back :brick::brick::brick:

How can he be upset when he didn't get a job he didn't even apply for. Besides he was hired to be in the university band when he was a student at South Florida U and he is no longer a student. They generally hire the whole band...he's not in the band...he's not even at the school...why would they call him back???? :hammer::hammer::hammer:

Does he think Disney looks at the job they need to fill and say, "Well lets see here, we've got the band from South Florida U coming back again...ummmm...what about that guy we had last year as a soldier, i know he didn't apply and he's not in school anymore and he's not in the band but lets dig up his number from the archives and see if he wants to work that seasonal contract again"

So this guy is suing for not getting a job that he didn't even apply for and that is only for people in the University of South Florida band when he doesn't even go there any more??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :hammer::brick:

I want his adress so I can give him a smack upside the head

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Just to clarify: His lawyer claims he did re-apply. Disney says he didn't. I assume there be the rub.

Walt Disney World officials insist no discrimination occurred. They contend that Channa was not rehired in 2006 because he did not reapply, and that the arrangement had nothing to do with his look. His claim, said Disney World spokeswoman Jacquee Polak, "is denied, and is without merit."

His attorney Matthew Sarelson disputed Disney's claim, noting he has filed affidavits from Channa and a witness stating that he had reapplied. Sarelson is seeking class-action status for the suit.

 

[Elonwy]

So this guy is suing for not getting a job that he didn't even apply for and that is only for people in the University of South Florida band when he doesn't even go there any more??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :hammer::brick:

I feel his pain...I didn't get hired to play Arwen in the Lord of the Rings trilogy...sure, I'm not an actress and I didn't audition or anything but i did sit around doing nothing waiting for the phone to ring...and I really wanted to make out with Viggo Mortenson

I'M SUING PETER JACKSON!!!!

 

[Elonwy]

Just to clarify: His lawyer claims he did re-apply. Disney says he didn't. I assume there be the rub.

regardless...I bet not every single person who worked a temp job for one season doesn't get the job back next season...expecially if they hire from Universities where he is no longer a student

 

[DisneyJoe]

Sarelson is seeking class-action status for the suit.

So Disney says he didn't reapply, he said he did - and the lawyer thinks that this should be a class-action lawsuit??? Lawyers.

 

[fosse76]

Aftre reading this article...I can't believe people are even arguing over this. There is no firing, no racism...quite the opposite, he was hired, allowed to wear his beard and turban and when his contract ended he left...happens to lots of people every year but they don't sue

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2008/06/sikh-musician-s.html

Disney did not fire him. He was hired as a University band Member for a seasonal position he knew he was only hired for the season and the next year he did not even re-apply for the job yet he's upset he didn't get called back :brick::brick::brick:

How can he be upset when he didn't get a job he didn't even apply for. Besides he was hired to be in the university band when he was a student at South Florida U and he is no longer a student. They generally hire the whole band...he's not in the band...he's not even at the school...why would they call him back???? :hammer::hammer::hammer:

Does he think Disney looks at the job they need to fill and say, "Well lets see here, we've got the band from South Florida U coming back again...ummmm...what about that guy we had last year as a soldier, i know he didn't apply and he's not in school anymore and he's not in the band but lets dig up his number from the archives and see if he wants to work that seasonal contract again"

So this guy is suing for not getting a job that he didn't even apply for and that is only for people in the University of South Florida band when he doesn't even go there any more??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :hammer::brick:

I want his adress so I can give him a smack upside the head

Assuming that Disney's official line that he didn't apply is correct (which may or may not be true), this is interesting. There were other articles that I read that mentioned he had been ready to perform when he was pulled at the last minute for the Disney-look. He and his lawyer also contend he did reapply in the article you linked to. Assuming he did reapply and the incident where he was pulled did in fact occur, Disney will be in huge trouble. However, assuming the incident occurred and he in fact did NOT reapply, Disney MIGHT be able to get it dismissed. I really should go back into employment law....it's always fascinating.

 

[DisneyJoe]

I find this paragraph interesting:

The suit was filed last Thursday in circuit court in Tampa, because that is where Channa said he was hired in 2005 and turned down in 2006, when Disney sent an official to the University of South Florida's music school to hire musicians.

 

[fosse76]

So Disney says he didn't reapply, he said he did - and the lawyer thinks that this should be a class-action lawsuit??? Lawyers.

Class-action lawyers really are the worst. I can't imagine there would be that many claims against Disney to warrant a class action status. Generally for class actions, the claims must be VERY specific, and everyone must have suffered in the EXACT same way. I don't even see how that is remotely possible in this case.

 

[kcw]

Assuming that Disney's official line that he didn't apply is correct (which may or may not be true), this is interesting. There were other articles that I read that mentioned he had been ready to perform when he was pulled at the last minute for the Disney-look. He and his lawyer also contend he did reapply in the article you linked to. Assuming he did reapply and the incident where he was pulled did in fact occur, Disney will be in huge trouble. However, assuming the incident occurred and he in fact did NOT reapply, Disney MIGHT be able to get it dismissed. I really should go back into employment law....it's always fascinating.

From the entertainment side Disney, I can pretty much guarantee that he wasn't pulled last minute for Disney look. I'm not positive of the article's meaning of last minute, but I'll take it as right before he went on stage to perform. If he was performing as a toy soldier, his turban and beard would have been covered. If they pulled him, they would have had a hole in their formations which is bad show. Disney entertainment values having good show very highly. Sure they might have pulled him aside afterwards and let him know that since he wasn't complying with Disney look, that he would be termed, but I don't think either situation happened. It's ironic how quick you are to side with some random unknown magazine articles, and automatically assume that Disney is lying. Sometimes you just have to step up and acknowledge that you didn't hear the full story, and jumped to conclusions that are wrong.

I highly doubt that Disney will be in trouble either way.... people sue Disney all the time for random things, and rarely do they find themselves not being laughed out of court. This isn't the first time it's happened, and it definitely won't be the last. The only difference is that this one caught a little publicity.

 

[KingStefan]

You really just continue to spout out nonsense and calling it fact, and acting like you KNOW everything, when in fact you don't. It's really annoying. See responses in bold embedded in quote:

...Does the turban-wearing cashier in Tomorrowland ruin the themeing? No. And it is up to Disney to prove that it does (which is why I brough up the NASA example).

It is not up to Disney to prove anything of the sort. If they choose not to have turban-wearing cashiers in Tomorrowland, they can do it, and they don't have to prove anything. Besides, it is not germane to the situation here in any way.

Could it ruin the themeing of Main Street? Perhaps, but again, Disney has to prove that the cashier is an actor putting on a show and not a cashier.

Wrong once again. Disney doesn't have to prove anything here. If they decided that everyone on Main Street had to paint their faces purple, they could do it and not have to prove anything.

And even so, they could easily move him elsewhere in the company if ultimately in the eyes of the law Disney was deemed correct.

If the facts are being reported correctly in this thread, he was originally hired as a seasonal employee, they DID make reasonable accomodations, and the terms of his employment was up, and so his employment ended. Disney was correct in the eyes of the law, and has no obligation to continue his employment for any reason whatsoever. Yes, if he was a permenant employee, they could easily move him elsewhere in the company, but he is not a permenant employee, and anyway, we don't know whether he wanted to work elsewhere in the company. In any case, Disney claims he never re-applied.

Disney has said that they welcome Sikh employees, that they already employ them, and make reasonable accomodations.

But since under a religious claim he would likely win, it's doubtful that would be an acceptable compromise.

It is not at all likely that he would win under a religious claim IMHO, but I am not a lawyer, and I don't think you are either, or you would not be making such rediculous, uninformed statements.

As has been stated, this is a religious requirement for his chosen religion. And as such he is protected.

Protected from what? His term was up, his employment was over, he didn't apply again. What does he need protection from?

...

Actually, they do.

Wrong again. Disney does not have to make any arrangements for him to work anywhere under the circumstances.

They are required by law to reasonably accomodate his religious belief.

If he were an employee, which he is not. And when he was an employee, they DID accomodate him. This is getting repetative.

What if Disney tried to argue that Main Street must have all white employees? What if tomorrow, the Pope said all Catholics MUST wear a cross visibly over there clothes? Or, as someone else gave as an example, that they had to dye their hair blue. Disney is required by law to make a reasonable accomodation. They simply cannot fire the employees.

Yes, they would have to make accomodations for all employees who worked on Main Street who now did not meet the new criteria. But they COULD require everyone to be white, although why they would do that I don't know.

As for the argument that he chose to work for Disney, so he should adhere to policy is not even remotely an acceptable response. Disney CHOSE to operate in the United States, and as such must follow the law. And the law is clear. Even when a company has a dress code, they must allow religious exemptions unless they can prove it to be an undue burden. Can Disney fire an employee who refuses to wear a particular costume based on a religious objection? Maybe, but only after a reasonable attempt to find a costume or non-costumed location fails to yield a position. Disney KNEW and made accomodations for the guy in the original post. It seemed as if a last minute decision by a manager brought this result. If so, then Disney is completely liable.

...
There are so may false statements in this paragraph, that I really don't want to take the time to address each one individually. Disney apparently is following the law. There is no evidence of a "last minute decision" by a manager, you just made that up - the terms of his employement were simply up.

...Why should Joe College get to work at Disney when Joe Muslim cannot, simply because he has a beard which is required by his religion? Disney has to prove that such discrimination is essential to their image, which I think everyone would agree, would not be a good thing.

Finally, for the fourth or fifth time HE IS NOT A MUSLIM!!!!!! And Disney, once again, doesn't have to prove anything. And not everyone would agree with much of anything that you have said.

Whew. I'm exhausted.

 

[TigerLily_CM]

Class-action lawyers really are the worst. I can't imagine there would be that many claims against Disney to warrant a class action status. Generally for class actions, the claims must be VERY specific, and everyone must have suffered in the EXACT same way. I don't even see how that is remotely possible in this case.

I agree...I was part of a class action suit and the paperwork and details were exhausting! Every little detail for every person named in the suit had to be accurate. Mine was for working overtime hours and not being paid and this was from a job that I had left about 7 years prior and I had to recall dates worked, times worked, shift changes, schedules for every day for months and months at a time.

Luckily for me I am a sentimental pack rat and keep everything AND I keep a journal which I wrote in almost every day at the time so I was able to benefit from the suit but of the 2,000 or so people involved only about 400 got any money.

I don't see him getting a cent based on what I have read

 

[ClemsonTigger]

So he WAS hired by Disney in 2005 looking as he does, and WAS NOT hired in 2006 looking the same way.

That is discrimination....HOW?

 

[fosse76]

From the entertainment side Disney, I can pretty much guarantee that he wasn't pulled last minute for Disney look. I'm not positive of the article's meaning of last minute, but I'll take it as right before he went on stage to perform. If he was performing as a toy soldier, his turban and beard would have been covered. If they pulled him, they would have had a hole in their formations which is bad show. Disney entertainment values having good show very highly. Sure they might have pulled him aside afterwards and let him know that since he wasn't complying with Disney look, that he would be termed, but I don't think either situation happened.

Well, as for good/bad show, you clearly haven't seen their crappy broadway shows and their extremely lax safety standards on them, but that aside, you weren't there, nor was I, so neither of us can say what happened.

It's ironic how quick you are to side with some random unknown magazine articles, and automatically assume that Disney is lying. Sometimes you just have to step up and acknowledge that you didn't hear the full story, and jumped to conclusions that are wrong.

Not sure how it is ironic. However, it's amazing how everyone is quick to defend Disney. Apparently, he was hired for parade and atmospheric performances. He claims to have been removed from the atmospheric performances, and after complaining to HR, he was informed that he was never hired for atmospheric performances. He claims he was subsequently fired. Whether he is exploiting his seasonal status (which I assume had a specific termination date) and using that termination to "pad" the claim is anyone's guess, but to automatically imply that Disney never does wrong and he is a moneygrubber is ridiculous.

Here is an excerpt from the article I read:

"Channa was terminated in early 2006 for not having the "Disney look," the suit says, and when he applied to be rehired October 2006, he was denied for the same reason. According to the suit, all of Channa's former co-workers who wanted to be rehired were."

http://tampabay.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2008/06/16/daily4.html

What I find disturbing is that the vocal majority on this board who automatically defend Disney and then label whoever dares sue them as opportunists and freeloaders. Clearly, something happened with regards to this guy's employment. Assuming his allegations are true, then indeed Disney violated the law. But whatever the case may be, he filed a suit. Whether it has any merit will be determined during the discovery phase. That is why we have a court system. No one has all the facts. He and his lawyer may really believe they have a legitimate claim. I based my arguments on the assumption that he isn't lying (or exxagerating), and other people, for argument's sake, did as well. The argument is whether or not he has a claim if the allegations are true, and which I argue, that under the law, he does.

I highly doubt that Disney will be in trouble either way.... people sue Disney all the time for random things, and rarely do they find themselves not being laughed out of court. This isn't the first time it's happened, and it definitely won't be the last. The only difference is that this one caught a little publicity.

That's not quite true. Disney only takes claims to court they KNOW they can win. I gurantee you that the lawsuits we hear about aren't even a fraction of the ones they fight (and end up settling). In this case, we don't know what the real truth is. Is it possible he is merely exploiting a religious belief for personal gain? Possibly. Is it possible that Disney didn't like the way he looked and fired him? Possibly. Instead of jumping to conclusions that Disney has the right to hire and fire anyone they please based on appearance (which to a degree they don't), why not let the case play out. If we never hear about this case again, chances are Disney's legal team determined the case had merit and settled. Disney is not a living breathing person. It's a company, and therefore subject to the whims of the people who run it. How they run it and how they are supposed to run it are never the same thing. Clearly the extent at which the grooming policy is enforced varies based on who your manager is, which can be problematic in a lawsuit on grooming standards, particularly when someone of a protected class is sueing.

 

[DisneyJoe]

However, it's amazing how everyone is quick to defend Disney.

Not really, considering you are on a Disney FAN site - you would find the same behavior on dozens of Disney fan sites, it doesn't surprise me in the the least.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Well, as for good/bad show, you clearly haven't seen their crappy broadway shows and their extremely lax safety standards on them, but that aside, you weren't there, nor was I, so neither of us can say what happened.



Not sure how it is ironic. However, it's amazing how everyone is quick to defend Disney. Apparently, he was hired for parade and atmospheric performances. He claims to have been removed from the atmospheric performances, and after complaining to HR, he was informed that he was never hired for atmospheric performances. He claims he was subsequently fired. Whether he is exploiting his seasonal status (which I assume had a specific termination date) and using that termination to "pad" the claim is anyone's guess, but to automatically imply that Disney never does wrong and he is a moneygrubber is ridiculous.

Here is an excerpt from the article I read:

"Channa was terminated in early 2006 for not having the "Disney look," the suit says, and when he applied to be rehired October 2006, he was denied for the same reason. According to the suit, all of Channa's former co-workers who wanted to be rehired were."

http://tampabay.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2008/06/16/daily4.html

What I find disturbing is that the vocal majority on this board who automatically defend Disney and then label whoever dares sue them as opportunists and freeloaders. Clearly, something happened with regards to this guy's employment. Assuming his allegations are true, then indeed Disney violated the law. But whatever the case may be, he filed a suit. Whether it has any merit will be determined during the discovery phase. That is why we have a court system. No one has all the facts. He and his lawyer may really believe they have a legitimate claim. I based my arguments on the assumption that he isn't lying (or exxagerating), and other people, for argument's sake, did as well. The argument is whether or not he has a claim if the allegations are true, and which I argue, that under the law, he does.



That's not quite true. Disney only takes claims to court they KNOW they can win. I gurantee you that the lawsuits we hear about aren't even a fraction of the ones they fight (and end up settling). In this case, we don't know what the real truth is. Is it possible he is merely exploiting a religious belief for personal gain? Possibly. Is it possible that Disney didn't like the way he looked and fired him? Possibly. Instead of jumping to conclusions that Disney has the right to hire and fire anyone they please based on appearance (which to a degree they don't), why not let the case play out. If we never hear about this case again, chances are Disney's legal team determined the case had merit and settled. Disney is not a living breathing person. It's a company, and therefore subject to the whims of the people who run it. How they run it and how they are supposed to run it are never the same thing. Clearly the extent at which the grooming policy is enforced varies based on who your manager is, which can be problematic in a lawsuit on grooming standards, particularly when someone of a protected class is sueing.

I can only speak for myself in that it's not defending Disney as much as an automatic dislike of litigation and entitlement that this suit seems to tap into.
There are events that Disney deserves to be held accountable for, just like any other major corporation. Do they do everything right? NO! But all the slip and fall cases, or my $20,000 got stolen out of my room, Tigger molested me or I must have been poisoned by their food is pathetic. And all these frivilous litigations cloud the real cases when they do arise.

Compound that with the fact that all we have to go on here is a news article...and we all know how accurate they are. How can you believe one word of the spin from the lawyers of either side.

For icing on the cake, we have issues of religion, race, gender or whatever that often have nothing to do with the real facts.

Just look at this thread....we have xenophobia, racism, bigotry, 9-11, american "patriotism", anti-americanism, muslim, sikh, civil liberties, and lord knows what else being thrown around. How much of that really relates to the case?

And yes, as the last poster mentioned, this is a Disney fan website....what do you expect?

 

[Piebald]

I actually know this guy! I know I posted the Jafar picture just to be a dumb@ss but I went to high school with him and his brother. I remember he was very into his religion whereas his brother completely left it and went on to cut his hair and detached himself from the faith and his family in general. Interesting...

 

[fosse76]

You really just continue to spout out nonsense and calling it fact, and acting like you KNOW everything, when in fact you don't. It's really annoying. See responses in bold embedded in quote:

Whew. I'm exhausted.

You really just don't get it do you. The law is very clear who has to prove what. Generally, the plaintiff has to prove he was fired and prove he wasn't re-hired through discriminatory practices. If Disney admits that the allegations are true because of the grooming policy and the discriminatory practices are necessary for themeing, then they must justify the policy because it is in direct contradiction to the law. In the situation of a beard as religious requirement (or in some cultures, piercings) they MUST under the law reasonable make an accomodation. They can't just simply fire them.