WDWFigment
Well-Known Member
...
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'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.
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.
Me too...I wonder if Disney would let me put ears on my Yalmuke?![]()
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 Do not quote me on that though as I am a little fuzzy on the laws.flordia is an at will work state, right? why do they have to give any reasons for firing or not hiring someone back?
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.
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.
OMG.... that is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Moisha Mouse.Ya mean like these?
![]()
![]()
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.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.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.