Muslim employee sues Disney over dress code

Muslim employee sues Disney for right to wear headscarf

A Muslim employee who works as a restaurant hostess at Disneyland Resort's Grand Californian hotel filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the company Wednesday, charging she wasn't allowed to wear her hijab

Extra extra read all about it

Pretty straight forward...

1. Disney has a dress code.
2. Ms. Boudal worked voluntarily of her own free will for Disney.
3. Ms. Boudal chose not to follow Disney's dress code.
4. She was asked by her employer to correct her WORK uniform.
5. Her employer even went so far as to try to appease her by giving her the option of taking another position so that she may continue to wear her scarf.
6. Ms. Boudal decided that since she was not going to receive special treatment that she would simply sue.

To me, this at its core has ZERO to due with religion or race.

You could very easily replace "MUSLIM" with "PUNK ROCKER" or "COWBOY" and replace "HIJAB" with "EYEBROW RING" or "COWBOY HAT"

I can't wait for some of you overly sensitive ATS members to start jumping on me for comparing Islam to punk rock or a religious garb to unecessary facial jewelry. I assure you...the analogy is innocent, but apropos.

reply to post by vimanarider


If my job said I must dress as Donald Duck, I would not be trying to put a scarf over Donald's head.

My job requires I wear a uniform, it is feminine and shows off the girls quite nicely. I don't mind. However the same uniform on another employee looks awful, she doesn't like the style, color, it hangs on her like it is on the hanger, but, it is her uniform, and until we get a new one, it is considered a job requirement, so she will wear it.

If a muslim woman wants to wear her muslim garb, then she should take a job that allows it to be worn, not a waitress at disney. I would laugh out loud if I got served by her thinking it was a joke!

Cali is not a right-to-work state. Employment and such is voluntary as in you have to agree to the conditions in order to have the job.

The fact that Disney offered the woman another position in an attempt to accomodate her personal desires shows, to me at least, that the company went above and beyond their legal obligations.

reply to post by vimanarider


The thing I have with one-sided story's is....they are always so one-sided!!

According to the Associated Press, Imane Boudlal, 26, a Morocco-born U.S. citizen, was fitted earlier this summer for a Disney-supplied headscarf but wasn't given a date for completion of the garment and was told she couldn't wear her own hijab in the interim.

A Disney supplied headscarf? So Disney is responsible for supplying Imane with this piece of garment.

During Ramadan this woman has to wear a headscarf obviously (don't know if this mandatory for their religion)

Disney didn't have the scarf ready in time and in the time in between she can't wear her own...

Disney did offer a more suitable work location if she insisted on wearing her own headscarf...

There that makes the picture a bit more complete...

Peace

[edit: where is my coffee!! the spelling errors are killing me!!]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by operation mindcrime]

If they wanna make it a race issue, they will. If they wanna make it a religion issue, they did. To me its propaganda and I've been seeing it more and more lately, leads me to believe some big showdown is about to go down. Ill leave you all to fill in the blanks.

reply to post by Hefficide


The fact that Disney is supplying their personnel with Disney-supplied headscarf's indicates that they acknowledge the product as such...

If Disney acknowledges the headscarf then they also acknowledge the reason why some of their personnel want to wear this piece of garment.

So if Disney is aware of the reason why some of their personnel wants to wear a headscarf but they fail to supply their personnel with such garment they are the ones lacking here.

They did however give an alternative but without knowing the exact description of the work she is expected to do on the alternative location, we cannot judge on the motivations of the woman to refuse this alternative.

Peace

reply to post by operation mindcrime


I can see your point completely. But the difference between making accomodations as a gesture and being legally obligated to do so are, seemingly what is in question here.

If Disney goes beyond labor laws to accomodate their employees religions beliefs then I don't think they should be actioned against, legally, because they didn't go far enough with their generousity for an individual employee.

A strict Muslim woman who says she has never shown her face in public, has been ordered by a female judge to remove her veil when she gives evidence in an Australian court

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...


I'm surprised no-one's commented on the above article

And surprised muslims beg, borrow and steal in order to get themselves into Western nations, only to complain about Western culture

reply to post by Hefficide

Hefficide,

Generous indeed but we cannot know if the contract that was established between the woman and her employer was based on the fact that the woman is allowed to wear such garment be it Disney-supplied or not....

If the woman agreed to the contract based on the fact that she would be able to wear a headscarf, and here employer failed to accommodate her with such then they are the ones at fault here.

For example: If your employer demands that you wear company issued pants but they are not available at the time. Would you agree to work pants-less in a whole different function as the one you were hired for until your pants are ready??

Peace

reply to post by Dock9


You are so right. This is what I don't understand. If you are muslim, then your religion says to you that the western ways are not suitable for you. So why in the world would you move there? The only answer is to make changes so that it is suitable. Turn the western world into a muslim one. Well, there are protests to that, so if you are muslim living in a western world you may as well get used to the protest.

reply to post by space cadet


Please space cadet, you are better then this!!!

THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION!!!

even though they would like to make it appear as such, this is merely a conflict between a company and one of it's employees.

To make it into a religious issue is not going to help!!

Disney acknowledges head scarves. I do not agree that a theme-park intended for kids is a place to express any form of religion!! But Disney does...

Peace

reply to post by operation mindcrime


The woman was offered other concession - a job that didn't require her to work with the public, or "backstage" in Disneys terms.

"Typically, somebody in an on-stage position like hers wouldn't wear something like that, that's not part of the costume," Brown told the AP. "We were trying to accommodate her with a backstage position that would allow her to work. We gave her a couple of different options and she chose not to take those."

And, for the record, the woman was a hostess for a restaraunt, and had been for two years. I find that telling because she'd made it through two years of service before this became an issue.

I don't think your pants analogy is accurate on a couple of points. An employer insisting I cannot wear pants would be illegal because not wearing pants in public is a crime. Not wearing religious garb is NOT illegal.

*edited because I have a black belt in typo*

[edit on 8/20/10 by Hefficide]

reply to post by Hefficide


Look at the comment section of that article!!

I was merely trying to avoid this thread escalating into yet another Muslim-bashing fest (we have enough of those!!).

We do not know the detail of the contract between the employee and her employer.

Clearly the employer failed to provide the woman with the proper garment as (probably) agree upon in her contract. Now if the employer request you to take up alternative work because they failed to deliver, I can see (legally at least) a valid reason to disagree.

Again we do not know the details of the contract and discussing this in a matter such as the OP started this thread with is nonsense!!

Peace

reply to post by vimanarider


Im sorry but when comes employment, you do not have the right to dictate procedure. There a dress code, there is a contract to sign, and depending on whether you accept the contract will dictate whether you get the job. She cannot sue the company for its own procedures I am sorry.

Now if she was refused a job based on her race or name, then she may very well have case, but obviously this is not that. Its a dress code that she refuses to follow. Like wise she chooses to follow a religion, and she chooses whether to accept the terms and conditions of a job.

Might as well pass her job over to the millions of others in this country who are in great need of one.

Originally posted by Dock9
And surprised muslims beg, borrow and steal in order to get themselves into Western nations, only to complain about Western culture

Why must this turn into a muslim bashing fest? As far as I can see it, she as an individual made a silly decision, she has to suffer the consequences.

I have seen plenty of frivilous lawsuits involving whites, blacks, christians and what not, but their actions do not in anyway reflect the rest.

In anycase this woman is going to have a real hard time finding another job I can tell you that. I cant imagine how many people would apply for her position. Hopefully it will go to somebody willing to compromise.

Heh...it was a religious issue from the moment they wrote an article about such a boring thing...

reply to post by operation mindcrime


It is about religion, that is the root of this issue, it is religious practice for a Muslim female to wear the head covered. It is out of a religious belief that her husband is the only person who should be allowed to see her glorious head of hair.

I have always believed in and thought that it is very unique that in America all religions have the freedom to practice, even those who would worship Satan are allowed to practice their religion. But if a Satan worshipper wanted to dress in a traditional 'grim reeper' outfit and drink blood for lunch, he would need to find a job that would welcome that.

Disney is not saying they don't want her to work for them, they have a uniform, and even accomodate headress for muslim women, admittedly a fairly new religion to America, or newly spreading, an appropriate uniform made specifically for a muslim woman sounds to me like they were trying to accomodate her religion, I feel it is yet another catalyst for the muslim religion to make the west bend the rules for their religion. That is not how we all practice peacefully aside one another here. When you go to work or school, you pretty much leave the religion in your heart, not wear it as clothing. You conform to the working world.

I am not trying to bash a muslim, I am pointing out that no other religion in the united states pushes to be ritually dressed when at work, work is work. Uniforms have been here a long time.

reply to post by space cadet


Thanks for the reply space cadet,

What I don't understand is...even USA Today is suggesting this is the problem...

Readers, what do you think? Is a unified "Disney Look" key to the theme parks' appeal? Should the company have the right to dictate employees' appearances?

This not the issue!!

Of course Disney can dictate how their personnel should dress, it's their company!! Is it key to the theme parks' appeal? Of course it is but...

Maybe the woman accepted a job at Disney because they have this policy (Disney-supplied headscarfs). Maybe she didn't care that her company's headscarf comes with big floppy ears attached to it....

But when her employer fails do deliver the clothes that should create this unified Disney look, who's fault is that??

The real issue here is whether or not the woman should have accepted an other position for the time being. And without knowing the details of those alternatives we cannot conclusively say it is the woman's own fault and she has no reason to sue.

Peace

[edit on 20-8-2010 by operation mindcrime]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by operation mindcrime]

That's a strange suggestion from USA Today. She's the employee so she should follow the rules and not impose her own law to her boss which will obviously become Sharia if tolerated long enough.

The problem with these people is that they want the religious laws to be realized in the US (or in the UK for that matter) which only gives the natives problems. They should just come back wherever hole they came so they can wear that rag permanently instead of giving problems to everybody else.