WDWFigment
Well-Known Member
...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The "Disney Look"
- Thread starter TubaGeek
- Start date
So much anger. I don't quite understand why we feel the need to insult each other. The issues involved here are quite interesting without result to name-calling, yelling, and virtual punching.
I don't pretend to know the law in this area (I do pretend to know other areas of the law), but I can speak to my ideas of what's fair and what's not fair.
Seems to me that an employer or perspective employer should attempt to accomodate true religious beliefs and requests, and should provide accomodations such that people with such beliefs can be gainfully employed. But there are boundries. I am Jewish. If I were very observant, I could not reasonably expect accomodations be made for me that would allow me to coach a college football team, since they play on Saturday and I wouldn't work on Saturdays if I were observant. In that case, my religioius observance would compromise my ability to do the job, and there would not be a reasonably way to work around it.
So, to me, the basic issue these allegation bring up is whether Disney can reasonably assert either 1) that this man's appearance comporomised his ability to do the job, or 2) that his appearance was purely a personal preference, rather than a relgious one. I haven't heard or read anthing more about the case, so I don't know the answers.
As to the debate about whether the man actually re-applied for the job or not, or whether he was fired or not; I find those questions relevant to the case at hand, but not particularly interesting as a discussion point.
I don't pretend to know the law in this area (I do pretend to know other areas of the law), but I can speak to my ideas of what's fair and what's not fair.
Seems to me that an employer or perspective employer should attempt to accomodate true religious beliefs and requests, and should provide accomodations such that people with such beliefs can be gainfully employed. But there are boundries. I am Jewish. If I were very observant, I could not reasonably expect accomodations be made for me that would allow me to coach a college football team, since they play on Saturday and I wouldn't work on Saturdays if I were observant. In that case, my religioius observance would compromise my ability to do the job, and there would not be a reasonably way to work around it.
So, to me, the basic issue these allegation bring up is whether Disney can reasonably assert either 1) that this man's appearance comporomised his ability to do the job, or 2) that his appearance was purely a personal preference, rather than a relgious one. I haven't heard or read anthing more about the case, so I don't know the answers.
As to the debate about whether the man actually re-applied for the job or not, or whether he was fired or not; I find those questions relevant to the case at hand, but not particularly interesting as a discussion point.
wedway71
Well-Known Member
MickeysMagic
Member
I work for a company that mandates that uniforms are worn at all times and we had to sign a document when we were hired that states this. In addition to verbally telling us that uniforms are mandatory. I had a choice to take the job and wear a uniform or leave it. Yes, it's not due to religion, but it's along the same lines as to that you know what is expected before hand.
I know Disney by all means will cover this before people are hired. Heck, when you take the Behind the Magic Tour they go over this, they even have pictures to what is and is not acceptable. Disney will always be under scrutiny, and you will always see someone whether religious or not, attacking Disney values which have been in place since Walt was alive and before WDW even existed. It's really just a sad state of affairs.
You try to create and maintain something good and someone has to squash it like a bug!!! off soap box.
I know Disney by all means will cover this before people are hired. Heck, when you take the Behind the Magic Tour they go over this, they even have pictures to what is and is not acceptable. Disney will always be under scrutiny, and you will always see someone whether religious or not, attacking Disney values which have been in place since Walt was alive and before WDW even existed. It's really just a sad state of affairs.
You try to create and maintain something good and someone has to squash it like a bug!!! off soap box.
SeaBreeze
New Member
I'm not trying to get involved in this since it seems like a massive case of he said she said. One side says one thing, the other another... we don't know the details or the truth. However, I do have a question for any legal eagles out there. The time frame of this is 2006. Is this a typical time frame for a law suit to come about? Sorry if this is a stupid thing to ask, I just found it interesting that this is all going down nearly two years later.
fuentesalex
Active Member
It depends on the state's statue of limitations. Most states allow up to 7 years. I'm not exactly sure what the rule is in Fl, but if he filed, I assume that he was within the range.
SeaBreeze
New Member
Thanks :wave:
I was kind of curious why he waited so long to file (ie if that's normal or just a personal decision). Clearly I'm clueless about these things :lol:
Me too...I wonder if Disney would let me put ears on my Yalmuke?
I think it's your Rabbi that might complain about that! :lol: Although I have seen some interesting designs before, so ya never know.
ClemsonTigger
Naturally Grumpy
Ya mean like these?
Imaginary27
New Member
Something I think a lot of people are failing to see here is that Disney's look guidelines are not just about "show." Sure, the show is part of it, but Disney is a company first and for most and the fact that "synergy" is such a huge part of the parks makes that obvious. I think the gift stores kill the theming of the parks, because it makes it look touristy. So it's not "a production" or a "show" really, it's a company, and the "disney look" is a "dress code" just like any other dress code.
The Disney look serves one very important purpose, and that's simply to get cast members to buy into the corporate culture of "show" that Disney wants to create. It's not for the guests, it's to keep the cast members in line. I'm not suggesting a "Mickey's brain washing machine" here. I'm just saying half if not more of the "Disney Look" is too promote Disney culture within the thousands of employee's that work there. It is what makes Disney work, and it's what makes Disney special, but it's also why thousands of company's look to Disney for their business models. These companies don't want their little worker drones to put on a show for their customers, it's because they want their employees to fall in line with the organizations culture.
When you take that into consideration, suggesting that a person who refuses to turn his back on his own religious traditions for the sake of some BS corporate traditions is in the wrong is very shallow way to think. Working for Disney could be very beneficial to his career aspirations, and he's being denied that right, a right that is given to millions of college kids, simply because he puts his faith in his religion above an inconsistent man made policy. It's not about "show" or "theming" because in the big picture that stuff doesn't really exist. It's fluff, it's there to keep employees in line and to sell t-shirts. Some could say that about a persons religion as well, but you'd be pretty lonely in that argument.
Disney is a culture within a larger culture, and they should not be exempt from following the norms of the larger culture just because they're putting on a "show." Religion is protected in this country for a reason. It's not "freedom of Religion unless you work for Disney." Disney is full of itself, and it always has been. They stereotype as they please, they discriminate as they please because who is going to stop them? I'm sure this guy can't, but I'm glad he's putting up a fight instead of just becoming another stereotype in Disney's "show."
The Disney look serves one very important purpose, and that's simply to get cast members to buy into the corporate culture of "show" that Disney wants to create. It's not for the guests, it's to keep the cast members in line. I'm not suggesting a "Mickey's brain washing machine" here. I'm just saying half if not more of the "Disney Look" is too promote Disney culture within the thousands of employee's that work there. It is what makes Disney work, and it's what makes Disney special, but it's also why thousands of company's look to Disney for their business models. These companies don't want their little worker drones to put on a show for their customers, it's because they want their employees to fall in line with the organizations culture.
When you take that into consideration, suggesting that a person who refuses to turn his back on his own religious traditions for the sake of some BS corporate traditions is in the wrong is very shallow way to think. Working for Disney could be very beneficial to his career aspirations, and he's being denied that right, a right that is given to millions of college kids, simply because he puts his faith in his religion above an inconsistent man made policy. It's not about "show" or "theming" because in the big picture that stuff doesn't really exist. It's fluff, it's there to keep employees in line and to sell t-shirts. Some could say that about a persons religion as well, but you'd be pretty lonely in that argument.
Disney is a culture within a larger culture, and they should not be exempt from following the norms of the larger culture just because they're putting on a "show." Religion is protected in this country for a reason. It's not "freedom of Religion unless you work for Disney." Disney is full of itself, and it always has been. They stereotype as they please, they discriminate as they please because who is going to stop them? I'm sure this guy can't, but I'm glad he's putting up a fight instead of just becoming another stereotype in Disney's "show."
GenerationX
Well-Known Member
If I remember my Business Law class correctly, the only businesses allowed to discriminate against a protected class are insurance companies and entertainment establishments. Insurance companies can charge more to a member of a protected class if they can show statistics that members of that class have more accidents/fires/etc. than others.
Entertainment establishments can discriminate in hiring to protect the theming of the establishment. I take this to mean that an Italian restaurant, for instance, can limit their hiring to only Italians or people of Italian descent to maintain authenticity. Discrimination is allowable, because it's a key part of the product itself.
So, the question is: Is maintaining the Disney Look important enough to the core Disney product to allow Disney to override the rights of members of a protected class? For CMs in front of customers as performers, Disney can reasonably argue that the discriminatory Disney Look is an integral part of the show. For cashiers and other non-performing CMs that are in front of customers, Disney's argument is weaker, but could still stand. For behind-the-scenes CMs, Disney would have no leg to stand on.
Entertainment establishments can discriminate in hiring to protect the theming of the establishment. I take this to mean that an Italian restaurant, for instance, can limit their hiring to only Italians or people of Italian descent to maintain authenticity. Discrimination is allowable, because it's a key part of the product itself.
So, the question is: Is maintaining the Disney Look important enough to the core Disney product to allow Disney to override the rights of members of a protected class? For CMs in front of customers as performers, Disney can reasonably argue that the discriminatory Disney Look is an integral part of the show. For cashiers and other non-performing CMs that are in front of customers, Disney's argument is weaker, but could still stand. For behind-the-scenes CMs, Disney would have no leg to stand on.
yankspy
Well-Known Member
Yes it is. However, if that was the reason, then it could perhaps be viewed as some sort of civil rights violation. Do not quote me on that though as I am a little fuzzy on the laws.
i just don't see how a company could accomodate everyone that could claim religious protection. i'm from just south of pittsburgh, so i of course watch the steelers when they're on, but my hospital is a 7 day a week thing, so if i wanted every sunday off i could say the bible says im not supposed to work on sundays and i want to go to church? that's the problem when you start trying to accomodate people, there just seems to be problems. one set of rules should suffice for everyone.
disney9752
Member
if i recall from casting or the "disney look" book given to cm's it explains all cm's including backstage, office, etc, all must follow the guidelines there are no exceptions.
wedway71
Well-Known Member
OMG.... that is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Moisha Mouse.Ya mean like these?
I wonder if I can get a matching Mickey Tallis???
yankspy
Well-Known Member
Yes. Problems will occur when you try to accomodate everyone. The philosophy of our nation uses lofty words like freedom and fairness and equality. However, these words are often used in rhetoric and logically they are almost impossible ideals to truly live up to. This is why these difficulties arise. This is a large and complex issue with varying legitimate opinions and I believe that it is probably not one that we could properly discuss on a message board.
wedway71
Well-Known Member
From what I understand, any position Onstage such as cashiers,Attractions,Merchandise,F&B,transportation etc. must abide the Disney look.
This goes for Costumed and non Costumed CMS.
The Disney Look guide is about the most thorough appearance guideline I have ever seen.It is very detailed and even has pics of acceptable and non acceptable hairstyles and mustaches.
Since being a CM is considered to be part of a show,Disney can enforce its look. I really dont see this guy winning.
I understand about Religious Freedoms,but Disney has a right to protect and enforce what they trademark as a certain look.
This goes for Costumed and non Costumed CMS.
The Disney Look guide is about the most thorough appearance guideline I have ever seen.It is very detailed and even has pics of acceptable and non acceptable hairstyles and mustaches.
Since being a CM is considered to be part of a show,Disney can enforce its look. I really dont see this guy winning.
I understand about Religious Freedoms,but Disney has a right to protect and enforce what they trademark as a certain look.