Muslim employee sues Disney over dress code

reply to post by buddhasystem


And I don't want to see fat people. Some people also don't want to see black people around Mickey Mouse since it ruins the "Disney Experience". Dude, it's a section of cloth she wears around her head. The response to seeing that piece of fabric: OH NOOOEEEEESSSSS!!!!!!!

And no, some one mentioned that Muslims come to western countries and then complain about western countries and that they should go back to Pakistan or what ever cave they crawled out of so this is about much more than Disney.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


Your name is quite apropos. It is not about anyone being against anyone.

It's about an employer with a dress code, with a signed contract confirming an understanding of what that dress code covers, saying "No" to someone seeking a personal exception. The Plaintiff is wrong. She has worked for two years before making a claim such as this, so she quite obviously knew and abided by the contract for quite a time. She seeks to change it, for personal reasons. I know about this stuff, as I worked in the hiring and training of employees for several years. When employees agree to a dress code, they cannot change it to suit them.

Accomodations were made, and rejected by the plaintiff. Disney did their job as an employer, and they went above and beyond. If not in what the plaintiff considers to be a timely manner, then, sorry, tough noogies. If she got by fine with the first two years, why whine now? $$$$$$

People entering this country have the right to pursue happiness. But their rights end when they interfere with other's. She is actively interferring with the rights of a corporation to hire, train, and employ people in a way that is fitting to that corporation. They abide by the laws, have legally binding signed contracts with all their employees, and expect those who remain employed by them to abide by the contract they signed. They have not changed their mind about employing the plaintiff, the plaintiff has changed her mind about being employed by a company who will not conform their dress code to her current wishes. If she wishes to be happy, find somewhere who will allow her current dress and work there.

That a lawyer would take this case doesn't speak well for some in the legal profession. Hopefully, she will not be further supported by the rest of us with unemployment benefits.

I can't imagine any Muslim who is willing to work for Disney in the first place being that much of a fundamentalist.
Disney is after all one of THE physical expressions of America and corporate Americanism as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

I suspect it's just a person who saw an opportunity to make some money!

reply to post by vimanarider


hope she loses.

She has been working at Disney for a while. In fact she worked at Disney for two years without wearing a headscarf and then all of a sudden decided that she wanted to wear one.

Disney offered her a job in the 'back', away from the customers and she refused. Disney even decided to try to make a scarf that would match better with the uniform.

I think Disney is going beyond what they need to do for this employee. The employee is trying to make this into a religious issue when it is not. There are many rules that Disney has including you cannot have facial hair in almost all positions.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
Dude, it's a section of cloth she wears around her head. The response to seeing that piece of fabric: OH NOOOEEEEESSSSS!!!!!!!

Yes, well, many humans aren't rational, and perhaps I'm not, but neither is she. If it's only a "section of cloth", why the heck does she sue?

And no, some one mentioned that Muslims come to western countries and then complain about western countries and that they should go back to Pakistan or what ever cave they crawled out of so this is about much more than Disney.

Yes, because it's unfair to impose your customs on your host country. When I go to Japan, I'm required to take off shoes in certain areas. I don't sue anybody for my right to wear shoes where I please. Equally, when I enter a mosque, I do the same and my female companion needs to cover themselves. And I don't make a fuss out of it.

When in Rome, do like Romans do.
Or get the heck out of Rome.

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by sdcigarpig

 

sdcigarpig,



Then the question could also be asked, was she expected to alert her employer? One is free to choose a religion at any point in time.

Peace

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

But one cannot void a signed contract concerning employment by whim. As she is the one who is desiring the change, she is the one who is expected to alert her employer IMMEDIATELY, that she is no longer able to abide by her contractual agreement concerning the dress code.
It's not about religion, it's about a changing a legally binding contract. She desires a change to suit her, now. She is wrong.
Supposed they did allow it. All employee would then need to be given new contracts, and many would want similar exceptions made for their own personal reasons. See how this can snowball? Have you ever employed anyone, or worked in the human resource field? I have. What you do for one, you have to expect to do for all.

Would the same naysayers here be in similar agreement if a "Snow White" costumed employee decided she needed to wear a burkha? Believe it or not, it would be exactly the same issue.
If the plaintiff doesn't like how she has to dress, especially after two years, she needs to start looking for a new job, because she cannot continue working at the one she has now.

reply to post by Freeborn


I was thinking the exact same thing.
How devote can you be working among people dressed as dogs and pigs?

Originally posted by stars15k
People entering this country have the right to pursue happiness. But their rights end when they interfere with other's.

Nicely said

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by AdAbsurdum

 

Your name is quite apropos. It is not about anyone being against anyone.

It's about an employer with a dress code, with a signed contract confirming an understanding of what that dress code covers, saying "No" to someone seeking a personal exception. The Plaintiff is wrong. She has worked for two years before making a claim such as this, so she quite obviously knew and abided by the contract for quite a time. She seeks to change it, for personal reasons. I know about this stuff, as I worked in the hiring and training of employees for several years. When employees agree to a dress code, they cannot change it to suit them.

It is possible that Disney made concessions and she isn't just attention seeking. It is also possible that she is a new convert. It is also possible that she only wears it for Ramadan and last years it wasn't an issue. You don't know what transpired over the last 2 years.

Accomodations were made, and rejected by the plaintiff. Disney did their job as an employer, and they went above and beyond. If not in what the plaintiff considers to be a timely manner, then, sorry, tough noogies. If she got by fine with the first two years, why whine now? $$$$$$

Those accommodations might not have been all that accommodating we don't know. As for why speak up now, see above.

People entering this country have the right to pursue happiness. But their rights end when they interfere with other's. She is actively interferring with the rights of a corporation to hire, train, and employ people in a way that is fitting to that corporation. They abide by the laws, have legally binding signed contracts with all their employees, and expect those who remain employed by them to abide by the contract they signed. They have not changed their mind about employing the plaintiff, the plaintiff has changed her mind about being employed by a company who will not conform their dress code to her current wishes. If she wishes to be happy, find somewhere who will allow her current dress and work there.

Or change things so corporations work towards her advantage. People (corporations) violate and walk away from legally binding contracts all the time when situations no longer suit their needs, people are well within their rights to do so also. In this case if it is unlawful for them to not allow her to wear her hijab, we'll find out soon enough.

That a lawyer would take this case doesn't speak well for some in the legal profession. Hopefully, she will not be further supported by the rest of us with unemployment benefits.

I for one hope she wins. The xenophobia is annoying. I also hope she does get unemployment benefits. Who is at fault will be decided in court, till then, they could of just acquiesced and changed the hiring standards for Muslims, Siks, etc. But chose not too.

Please correct me if I"m wrong but don't most of the Disney employees wear costumes to work.

When you go on any specific ride all the personnel are dressed to fit the theme of the ride whether it is a safari, space adventure, or some other adventure they are all dressed in special costumes. Disney goes to great lengths to have the details of a ride all worked out.

If the employee wants to wear something other than her costume, then she shouldn't have taken the job.

If my religion dictates that I wear a bright orange baseball cap should I be allowed to wear it on the African Jungle Cruise?

If the employee in question does not wear a costume and instead works behind the scenes then she should be able to wear what she wants within the confines of any dress code that all mush follow.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yes, well, many humans aren't rational, and perhaps I'm not, but neither is she. If it's only a "section of cloth", why the heck does she sue?

Because her belief is a religious one. That I can understand. The other side of the coin? Just seems like good o'le fashioned fear-of-what's-different to me.

Yes, because it's unfair to impose your customs on your host country. When I go to Japan, I'm required to take off shoes in certain areas. I don't sue anybody for my right to wear shoes where I please. Equally, when I enter a mosque, I do the same and my female companion needs to cover themselves. And I don't make a fuss out of it.

This isn't a host country. This is her country. (I haven't seen any evidence she isn't an American so I am making an assumption here.) Her wearing a hijab doesn't in any way violate my rights, or yours, any more than Christians wearing a cross regardless of how I feel about it. Even that comparison doesn't carry the true weight of her practices since Christianity doesn't require the wearing of a cross. Also, comparing America to Japan is a false equivalency, IMO.

When in Rome, do like Romans do.
Or get the heck out of Rome.

Luckily this is America not Rome. One doesn't have to leave if they don't like something, they can seek to change it.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


You seem intent on imagining up every possible scenario that may vindicate her whilst dismissing at least equally as likely explanations just so it suits your pre-conceived and equally bigoted opinion that she is being victimised due to her religion.

My experience of people and similar stories is that she is just a person out to make a quick buck!

reply to post by Freeborn


Lol, how am I a bigot? I am not hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.

I don't know what happened in those past 2 years she was employed. We'll see what happens with the court ruling.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by AdAbsurdum]

EDIT TO ADD: It is possible that since you are from the UK you may have a different definition of the word bigot. If so, please bear with me.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by AdAbsurdum]

I have held many positions in many businesses and can think of none that would allow for the full covering of the face for any employee who is directly involved with the public.

I agree that we mere mortals cannot know all of the details, and I trust nothing that is not backed by references and citations, but with the information that is presented I believe the main question is as presented above:

Why is there a two year period of employment before the issue has been raised?

My religious beliefs would never be considered as reason for a corporation to change its policy. I know this from experience. Disney has a policy, as do all other corporate entities. She knew this before accepting employment. She refused the accommodations offered. She is entitled to no special benefit or recompense from Disney.

If this is allowed to continue, if there is just one judge willing to concede on this point; thus providing precedent, our nation's laws will be the damaged party. With the precedent the changes will continue until the Land of the Free and the Home of the brave is just another Muslim Outpost.

DK2

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Dekatu]

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


Perhaps bigot was too strong a word to use.

I meant bigoted in the sense that you seem unwilling to accept any scenario that she is in the wrong and seem intent on believing that she is the victim of religious persecution.

I personally think that the likeliest explanation is that her religion is absolutely irrelevant and that she is just someone who has spotted an opportunity to make money!

I have seen it so many times from people of various religions and backgrounds.

Originally posted by Hefficide
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.

And that is exactly why they made the gesture in case she sued. I am almost positive they spoke to legal department before making the gestures they did in preparation. It's a means of both covering there behinds as well as trying to be sensitive to the employee needs. It's common occurrence in the work place with major corporations. It is often the case that they will limit there gestures or offers in hopes that the employee will feel compromised and quit but within legal boundaries. I have seen this happen more than a few times and the plaintiffs damn near always lose there case.

It's on the fence for me. It can go either way and without exact details I can't really pass judgment. It's her right to seek protection legaly a smuch as it is Disney's right.

[edit on 8-20-2010 by PJAmerica]

reply to post by Freeborn


Ah, no she may very well be.

My point is we don't know why 2 years went by with nothing. This very well may be a cash grab or it maybe that she's being persecuted. We don't know so we'll have to see what the court rules.

Can we retract the bigot comment now?

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


Of course, I used the word out of context and incorrectly,apologies....I'm sure you know what I was trying to say, obviously very poorly.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Her wearing a hijab doesn't in any way violate my rights, or yours, any more than Christians wearing a cross regardless of how I feel about it.

It does violate my right to enjoy Disney land.

I go to Disney Land to enjoy the Walt Disney characters.

I don't go there to indulge a Disney Land employee's public declaration of religious piety.

Anyway, this clearly is a religious issue. She deliberately made it one when she demanded the right to wear the Muslim scarf at Ramadan.

Expect much more of this in the future.

If the USA is going to import Muslims, then Muslims will push to change the character of the USA until it is a more Islamic USA. Even Walt Disney is going to have a distinct Muslim flavour.

get used to it...