"Disney look" lawsuit

[JugglingFreak]

It's already been tried. A woman sued back in 2004 for not being allowed to wear a hijab (Muslim head scarf).

She lost, if I recall correctly..

[mechurchlady]

Disney needs to redo its on stage and off stage thinking. A religious woman should not be allowed to portray Jasmine in a long skirt or Ariel without hooters showing. However why not let a person with one eye or leg not be in sales. Why not let a person who for religious reasons does not shave. African American men have a horrible time with shaving as the hair tends to become ingrown and painful. It is sad when people cannot work in a job because of their religious beliefs.

[drcorey]

Disney needs to redo its on stage and off stage thinking. A religious woman should not be allowed to portray Jasmine in a long skirt or Ariel without hooters showing. However why not let a person with one eye or leg not be in sales. Why not let a person who for religious reasons does not shave. African American men have a horrible time with shaving as the hair tends to become ingrown and painful. It is sad when people cannot work in a job because of their religious beliefs.

It's like people have said, It's a Stage.
how would you like to take kids to a santa that looks like a muslim refugee?
or a mexican jasmine? or a black Snow White? a stage is a stage. if you can't become the part, someone else can.

like out here when MGM had their themepark, I knew one of the Betty Boops,
I asked her if non-white skinny girls ever tried to apply, she said all the time.
But, Would people come to see a fat black Betty Boop? yeah right.

and the Three Stooges, would people come to see three tall skinny mexicans?

[DisneyMom]

Well, playing the Devil here.....
I say look is important, but nationality and religion may not necessarily determine what you look like ;)
*Sigh*
In my heart I'm Ariel, but my Body screams, "Ursula!!!!!!"

[felinefan]

It's brand recognition. I mean, what if Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben were portrayed by non-African-Americans? Would you buy Mexican food products like Rosarita refried beans or tortillas if they had an Asian picture on them? Or if Johnny Walker gin had an obviously non-British person on it? How about if Betty Crocker was a man? I could go on, but the point is, if you see the above-named brand characters as what they are--black, Latino, English, female--on labels and packages, and if we have a situation where, in an entertainment setting, in front of an audience, they were portrayed differently, people would get confused, disappointed, etc., etc..
Therefore, Ariel is always a redhaired Caucasian girl, Snow White is a blackhaired European, Mulan is Chinese, Jasmine is Middle Eastern, and so on. If you have a member of a band or other group that is supposed to look alike, and one person is wearing say a red fez or turban and has facial hair while the rest of the group is cleanshaven and is wearing a straw boater or bearskin hat, say, that breaks up the continuity. People naturally focus on what's different in a group, and it ruins the effect. No attention is paid to the music, performance, or whatever if everyone is focusing on the one member who is different. People just naturally do that.

There was also a case of a Muslim woman who wore her chador on her driver's license photo, and one time she got pulled over by a cop. The cop wanted the woman to get a picture for her driver's license that showed her face, and show her face when requested to do so to see if it matched the picture. I forget what she was stopped for, something minor, but the woman refused to remove her chador. It stirred up a hornet's nest. I don't know if she won her case or not.
The reason the officer needed to see her face was that it was part of his job to confirm a person's identity. He wasn't doing any profiling, or trying to mess with someone's beliefs. He was just trying to do his job, the way he was trained to do it.

[Theme Park Where]

DisneyMom, I kind of agree. The discussion so far has been about "playing the role" but has focused on actual character roles, like Belle or Ariel. Those ARE theatrical roles under the law, and casting a particular look is appropriate. While I agree that the Disney Look is an important part of the culture of Disney, it is questionable to have "deriving creativity through diversity" as your casting motto when you discount people who have particular religious beliefs because those beliefs don't allow them to fit within a narrow dress or appearance code.

I also think that it's somewhat inappropriate to imply that people who dress differently or wear their hair differently because of a cultural or religious dictate are somehow "wrong" or "inappropriate" for families to see. There's a major difference between "unkempt" and bearded. It's possible to discern between real religious requirements and a cm who just wants to get away with a personal look, and it's possible to use common sense when placing a person who has particular religious grooming needs in a role. We're not all cookie cutters and the guests are as diverse as can be, why shouldn't the cast members who assist them be? Sure, some roles and some looks don't mix, or some religious requirements, like head coverings or jewelery, and some disabilities might create safety concerns within a particular role, but I don't believe a person should be hidden away behind the scenes, or not hired at all, just because they don't fit within a narrow view of what makes a person appear "desireable."

I guess that's why I enjoy working for Universal. We do seem to be more open to hiring qualified people who may not quite fit the appearance guidelines. We have a woman who wears a headscarf, we have many team members who have very visible disabilities, and we allow a neatly kept beard. We have made exceptions to the jewelery and tattoo requirements in particular circumstances for religious purposes as well. It doesn't seem to have turned Universal into a free-for-all, and I think it makes us a more diverse and interesting staff.

Disney's made exceptions before as well. The native americans who were hired originally to perform in Pocahantas at DHS were allowed to keep their hair long, even though prior to casting that show all performers wore wigs and makeup and were required to maintain the grooming guidelines offstage. Due to cultural beliefs, many of the native american men did not cut their hair, and they were originally told they had to do so. It was particularly ridiculous since they would have to cut their hair, against their beliefs, then put on a wig to play the role onstage. Disney agreed to change the guidelines, and performers were allowed to have long hair or facial hair if the role they played onstage called for it, and with approval from management.

I guess I'm mixed on the topic because I do see so many young people today who are tattooed, pierced, and not the most professional looking individuals. I'm torn because there IS an impression that someone who is extreme in their appearance somehow seems less capable and less appropriate. But the problem is, that this is only an impression and I've met some very capable and very professional young people with visible tattoos, or piercings, or even bright pink hair. I wonder how many fabulous employees the parks turn away because those employees don't want to conform to a narrow appearance guideline. Part of me really wonders if we shouldn't be practicing what we preach and hiring people based on ability rather that appearance. That really is what diversity is.

[Sarah Magdalene]

I've had some great Photopass photographers, attendants, and greeters who need the use of wheel chairs and/or an ECV to do get by. Be it a missing limb or limbs, size, or simply because of a born with disability - these individuals were hardly hidden away from sight and were great and very enthusiastic about their jobs. They have made long days go by faster with their wonderful personalities. What a loss to us if they were never hired or put in a backstage role!

In costuming, a couple of women do wear the religious head scarfs while at work. It's a backstage job, so maybe it may not matter as much as someone on stage.

[hobie16]

I guess I'm mixed on the topic because I do see so many young people today who are tattooed...

There was a recent study about tattoos. It was found that people with tattoos were viewed as not being trustworthy. The interest part was people that had tattoos who saw other people with tattoos felt that they were not trustworthy.

[mechurchlady]

It's like people have said, It's a Stage.
how would you like to take kids to a santa that looks like a muslim refugee?
or a mexican jasmine? or a black Snow White? a stage is a stage. if you can't become the part, someone else can.

like out here when MGM had their themepark, I knew one of the Betty Boops,
I asked her if non-white skinny girls ever tried to apply, she said all the time.
But, Would people come to see a fat black Betty Boop? yeah right.

and the Three Stooges, would people come to see three tall skinny mexicans?

As I stated there are roles that are specific requirements such as the princesses, princes, and Jasmine. HOWEVER the problem lies in other person who are not playing a SPECIFIC character. Should bus boys, waiters, janitors, managers, ride operators, sales personnel, etc. be only clean shaven, no scars, 4 limbs, no handicaps, etc.? Why can't a bus boy have one eye, walk with a limp or wear only long pants (religious reasons or badly scarred legs)? Should a waitress have to wear leiderhosen or a sales clerk be told to take of his yamulke?

Yes Aladdin should be a cute guy, young and dark haired without a hat and bare chested preferably. Yes Tarzan should run around in a speedo and loincloth but those employees not playing roles should not be forced to do menial labour solely because of religious reasons or medical reasons.

[drcorey]

DisneyMom, I kind of agree. The discussion so far has been about "playing the role" but has focused on actual character roles, like Belle or Ariel. Those ARE theatrical roles under the law, and casting a particular look is appropriate. While I agree that the Disney Look is an important part of the culture of Disney, it is questionable to have "deriving creativity through diversity" as your casting motto when you discount people who have particular religious beliefs because those beliefs don't allow them to fit within a narrow dress or appearance code.

I also think that it's somewhat inappropriate to imply that people who dress differently or wear their hair differently because of a cultural or religious dictate are somehow "wrong" or "inappropriate" for families to see. There's a major difference between "unkempt" and bearded. It's possible to discern between real religious requirements and a cm who just wants to get away with a personal look, and it's possible to use common sense when placing a person who has particular religious grooming needs in a role. We're not all cookie cutters and the guests are as diverse as can be, why shouldn't the cast members who assist them be? Sure, some roles and some looks don't mix, or some religious requirements, like head coverings or jewelery, and some disabilities might create safety concerns within a particular role, but I don't believe a person should be hidden away behind the scenes, or not hired at all, just because they don't fit within a narrow view of what makes a person appear "desireable."

I guess that's why I enjoy working for Universal. We do seem to be more open to hiring qualified people who may not quite fit the appearance guidelines. We have a woman who wears a headscarf, we have many team members who have very visible disabilities, and we allow a neatly kept beard. We have made exceptions to the jewelery and tattoo requirements in particular circumstances for religious purposes as well. It doesn't seem to have turned Universal into a free-for-all, and I think it makes us a more diverse and interesting staff.

Disney's made exceptions before as well. The native americans who were hired originally to perform in Pocahantas at DHS were allowed to keep their hair long, even though prior to casting that show all performers wore wigs and makeup and were required to maintain the grooming guidelines offstage. Due to cultural beliefs, many of the native american men did not cut their hair, and they were originally told they had to do so. It was particularly ridiculous since they would have to cut their hair, against their beliefs, then put on a wig to play the role onstage. Disney agreed to change the guidelines, and performers were allowed to have long hair or facial hair if the role they played onstage called for it, and with approval from management.

I guess I'm mixed on the topic because I do see so many young people today who are tattooed, pierced, and not the most professional looking individuals. I'm torn because there IS an impression that someone who is extreme in their appearance somehow seems less capable and less appropriate. But the problem is, that this is only an impression and I've met some very capable and very professional young people with visible tattoos, or piercings, or even bright pink hair. I wonder how many fabulous employees the parks turn away because those employees don't want to conform to a narrow appearance guideline. Part of me really wonders if we shouldn't be practicing what we preach and hiring people based on ability rather that appearance. That really is what diversity is.

like that "jack" they fired. he already had his real moustache and beard and Disney wanted him to shave them off so they could glue on fake ones.
I wonder if they also want a clean shaven Santa so they can glue on thier own stache and beard.