DLR employee sent home for wearing muslim head covering

[drcorey]

Yep, you have to dress as they tell you too,
Or you will not go onstage.

If everyone demanded thier own little things on thier costumes,
it would not be disney anymore.

[CA Screamin Dude]

Get out the New Hire paperwork for Exhibit A and be done with it.


Federal Law (Title VII, CRA-1964) requires employers to "reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee... unless doing so would impose an undue hardship." These beliefs must additionally be "sincerely held." Level of belief is likely to be challenged.

Is Disney's Costume addition a reasonable accommodation? Does permitting a violation of the Disney Look impose an undue hardship affecting the nature and viability of the Company?

The courts have historically found that an undue hardship is imposed by forcing Disney to permit a violation of the Disney Look onstage. Disney has offered a reasonable accommodation in offering the employee to violate the Disney Look if she were to work backstage, or to violate the Disney Look if she were to wear a costume hat.

[delsdad]

Darth, you gotta understand, shes messin with peoples Disney now. I'm pretty riled up about this myself, I'm not going to wish death on her, but as far as I'm concerned, if she doesnt like the way we do things here she can go home. I'm going to stop now before I get into a tirade over it.

I think I have a solution to the issue though, one where she can wear the headscarf and dress in traditional Morrocan clothing, while onstage, while working for Disney. They should transfer her to the Morrocan Pavilion at EPCOT.

Steve

Yet when I had lunch at the Moroccan pavilion a week ago, only the belly dancer was wearing any sort of head scarf! And it was very transparent ! The other women wore none. However the musicians were wearing fezs', which are I believe cultural, and not religious!

[CA Screamin Dude]

Continuing my previous post (since I was locked out of editing it), I predict, come lawsuit time, the plaintiff will have a difficult time overcoming the McDonnell-Douglass burden shifting requirement. Briefly, a SCOTUS decision in 1973 established precedent for this kind of a discrimination case (Title VII), in which the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination (probably, the plaintiff seems to have standing), and the defendant produces evidence of a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason (e.g., policy - "Disney Look") for its practices or actions.

The question becomes whether the "Disney Look" policy is truly not discriminatory, relative to the plaintiff's "sincerely held" religious beliefs. Under the McDonnell-Douglass burden shift, the plaintiff must show an inference of discrimination. The "Disney Look" itself probably can't be written off as a pretext for discrimination, so the plaintiff will probably declare that Disney's motivation for sending her home (or not allowing her to wear a hijab in plain view on stage, but allowing her to wear it back stage, etc.) is discriminatory in that Disney's motivation is to unlawfully squash religious expression "freedom of religion", rather than to take positive steps to grow their enterprise. It must also be shown that no undue hardship would be incurred by forcing the Company to make a no holds barred accommodation (rather than their current "backstage or onstage with a costume hat" offer).

Last, McDonnell-Douglas allows the plaintiff to prove the defendant is lying about its reasons for action (e.g., taking the plaintiff out of an onstage role), again, under the pretext of another policy ("Disney Look"). Ability to do so or at least to make a valid claim towards such a proof greatly helps the plaintiff's case. Failure to or refusal to do so actually helps the defendant's case.

[hobie16]

However the musicians were wearing fezs', which are I believe cultural, and not religious!

What are the two things an Israeli pilots needs if he crash lands in Arab territory?

A fez and a clip-on foreskin.

[Goofyernmost]

I guess I am going to have to stop reading this thread because I only get more and more frustrated at everyone's lack of ability to see anything but one small part of a huge picture.

Do I care about the "one" person right to exercise their faith (whatever it may be)? Yes, very much so. Do I think that that "one" person has the right to bully their beliefs into public arenas with established, proven ways of conducting themselves for what ever personal gain they might achieve? Not just NO but HELL NO!

Religious freedom DOES NOT MEAN that everyone has to conform to another's beliefs. It simply means that they must accept and tolerate (for lack of a better word). They must not deprive someone of their beliefs but they do not have to make more than reasonable accommodation to it. This is especially true in a case like this.

I am not now nor have I ever been a CM and yet, I know what the rules are and what is expected because it is a show, a play, a live movie, a fantasy, call it what you will. But it is not reality based, it is fiction. All those rules apply to REAL LIFE, not to fiction or when the introduction of those beliefs pop the fiction bubble and therefore effectively end the story.

The phrase, what harm will it do them, is almost ludicrous. It not only does them harm it destroys the focal point of the venue. It is reality introduced into fantasy. I can stay home and get that.

Take a minute and view the majority and their rights instead of focusing on One particular individual and their quest for attention.

[felinefan]

From time to time I recieve emails from a fellow who keeps on top of things in the Muslim world as it pertains to Western civilization. The Muslims have their Sharia law, but what a lot of people don't know is that they actually have TWO forms of Sharia law--one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims. The one for Muslims basically says, "Kill all non-Muslims who refuse to convert", while the other says, "We are a peaceful people, killing non-Muslims isn't really what we're about." And whenever they are confronted about killing non-Muslims, or Muslims who convert to other faiths, it's this second version that they trot out for the media.
This person has shared warnings from Muslim and former Muslim women who are aware of the true motives of Islam--they are going to do everything possible to take over America and the rest of the world. What better way to do this than taking aim at a beloved American icon, Disneyland and Walt Disney World, and sending this woman as a foot soldier to make them look as bad as possible while making her look noble? Or how about screaming "Anti-Muslim" to resistance to building a mosque near Ground Zero? That's like opening a Nazi souveneir shop next to the site of a concentration camp from WWII.
She isn't just trying to get attention--she's part of an attack on America, and a more insidious one than 9/11 at that.

[CujoSR]

Can we please leave politics at the door? I don't feel they have any place on this site.

[Disneyguy85]

Can we please leave politics at the door? I don't feel they have any place on this site.

Agreed.

[darph nader]

Can we please leave politics at the door? I don't feel they have any place on this site.

Thank You Cujo.