# Politically Correct Stupidity: Episode 3,872,390,576 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768 "2010-08-19T18:32:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/201 "2010-08-25T17:24:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > The cast appearance policies _are_ enforced. They just have another policy of granting religious exemptions. > > > > As far as why they’re not granting this particular exemption, I couldn’t say, though I’d guess it has something to do with the anti-Islamic current we’re seeing at the moment. > > Well if that’s the case then its bullshit and the woman is entirely correct to sue. So you believe that as a matter of law, Disney’s offer to wait two months and work out of sight in the meantime is not a reasonable accomodation? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/202 "2010-08-25T17:37:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So you believe that as a matter of law, Disney’s offer to wait two months and work out of sight in the meantime is not a reasonable accomodation? They’d have to show that the delay of X months was reasonable. What took them so long to make a hijab? ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/203 "2010-08-25T17:40:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Well if that’s the case then its bullshit and the woman is entirely correct to sue. > > So you believe that as a matter of law, Disney’s offer to wait two months and work out of sight in the meantime is not a reasonable accomodation? There is no indication that Disney have given her a timescale. How long will she have been waiting by the time the case gets to court? How long should she wait to bring the case? If here rights **are** being ignored what is a reasonable time to wait to try and rectify the situation? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/204 "2010-08-25T17:59:32Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > So you believe that as a matter of law, Disney’s offer to wait two months and work out of sight in the meantime is not a reasonable accomodation? > > There is no indication that Disney have given her a timescale. > > How long will she have been waiting by the time the case gets to court? > > How long should she wait to bring the case? > > If here rights **are** being ignored what is a reasonable time to wait to try and rectify the situation? As I suggested above: > [@Bricker](#): > > I’d want to be guided by a bit more developed record before answering that. If Disney said, for example, “We need six months, because we have one part-time designer assigned to the task, and she just went on maternity leave,” I’d be hesitant to find that reasonable. > > But if their evidence painted a picture of a reasonable staffing effort and showed other costume change requests, especially changes desired by the company, moving through a similar process and with similar time results, I’d be more inclined to credit the reasonableness of it. Obviously, the longer the delay, the more skepticism I’d have. > > But two months doesn’t strike me as presumptively unreasonable. Forty-eight months does. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/205 "2010-08-25T18:17:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So you believe that as a matter of law, Disney’s offer to wait two months and work out of sight in the meantime is not a reasonable accomodation? Due to what circumstances or peculiarities of this job do you think wearing a non-company-designed hijab on an interim basis while Disney designs their own (and in lieu of working “out of sight”) poses an undue hardship to the company? These are usually pretty demure accoutrements, after all. Do you think the two options (wearing her own vs. working in the back) are equivalently reasonable accommodations from the POV of the employee? Does either one represent a significantly greater genuine hardship to Disney? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/206 "2010-08-25T19:21:47Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > So you believe that as a matter of law, Disney’s offer to wait two months and work out of sight in the meantime is not a reasonable accomodation? > > Due to what circumstances or peculiarities of this job do you think wearing a non-company-designed hijab on an interim basis while Disney designs their own (and in lieu of working “out of sight”) poses an undue hardship to the company? These are usually pretty demure accoutrements, after all. > > Do you think the two options (wearing her own vs. working in the back) are equivalently reasonable accommodations from the POV of the employee? Does either one represent a significantly greater genuine hardship to Disney? I’d say that allowing her to wear something that they feel is non-Disney presents a significant hardship to Disney. They spend millions of dollars and painstakingly pay attention to every minor detail in the furtherance of their brand. If they feel her hijab, or any other religious garb takes away from the Disney experience then that is a hardship. Her working in the back for the same pay inconveniences one person, and temporarily at that. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/207 "2010-08-25T19:31:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > > Due to what circumstances or peculiarities of this job do you think wearing a non-company-designed hijab on an interim basis while Disney designs their own (and in lieu of working “out of sight”) poses an undue hardship to the company? These are usually pretty demure accoutrements, after all. > > > > Do you think the two options (wearing her own vs. working in the back) are equivalently reasonable accommodations from the POV of the employee? Does either one represent a significantly greater genuine hardship to Disney? > > I’d say that allowing her to wear something that they feel is non-Disney presents a significant hardship to Disney. They spend millions of dollars and painstakingly pay attention to every minor detail in the furtherance of their brand. If they feel her hijab, or any other religious garb takes away from the Disney experience then that is a hardship. Her working in the back for the same pay inconveniences one person, and temporarily at that. As the EEOC Compliance manual, cited _supra_, points out, “image” or “brand management” is not cognizable as a hardship. And frankly, as an argument, it amounts to “we can’t allow her to wear her own hijab because our image is based, in part, on not letting her wear her own hijab.” Consider “brand management” as the corporate flip side to an individual plaintiff’s “mental anguish.” You don’t get to plead it unless you can also point to some concrete, particular, and objective injury that gives rise to it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/208 "2010-08-25T19:40:30Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > So you believe that as a matter of law, Disney’s offer to wait two months and work out of sight in the meantime is not a reasonable accomodation? > > Due to what circumstances or peculiarities of this job do you think wearing a non-company-designed hijab on an interim basis while Disney designs their own (and in lieu of working “out of sight”) poses an undue hardship to the company? These are usually pretty demure accoutrements, after all. Well, Disney’s approach to the appearance of their employees is not a pretext. They style their employees “Cast members,” and their whole raison detre seems to be involve a highly specific imaginary role. They’re not simply “restaurant hostesses,” in other words, but characters in whatever theme the restaurant happens to be. This places their interest above, say, a rental car company, which may have a generalized interest in image but nothing more. And again I’ll point out the language I quoted earlier: > [@](#): > > The accommodation Alamo offered Ms. Nur was that “she would be allowed to wear [a head covering] when she was in the back office . . . but when she went to the rental counter to rent cars in the front of the office, she would have to remove it.” (citation omitted) It is undisputed that the accommodation Alamo offered Ms. Nur required her to remove her head covering during Ramadan when she served clients but still required her to serve clients, making it impossible for Ms. Nur to avoid removing her head covering at work. (citation omitted). Accordingly, Alamo’s proposal would have failed to accommodate Ms. Nur’s religious conflict, and was not a reasonable accommodation. Note that they do not reject the per se back office solution. Their finding rests on the fact that Alamo required her to remove the scarf by virtue of the fact that it required her to serve customers. That paragraph seems to suggest that a temporary back office solution was quite tenable. > [@](#): > > Do you think the two options (wearing her own vs. working in the back) are equivalently reasonable accommodations from the POV of the employee? Does either one represent a significantly greater genuine hardship to Disney? I don’t believe it’s correct to ask which is the greater hardship to Disney, as though the law requires that Disney’s claim fails unless the greatest hardship is felt. As long as Disney can identify _a_ hardship, their burden is met. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/209 "2010-08-25T20:04:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t believe it’s correct to ask which is the greater hardship to Disney, as though the law requires that Disney’s claim fails unless the greatest hardship is felt. As long as Disney can identify _a_ hardship, their burden is met. Not quite. Any accommodation is a hardship after all—there is a cost of investigating and negotiating a solution and then implementing and monitoring it. Disney must furnish a reasonable accommodation unless it would present an undue hardship to the company. And you are right, it need not be the accommodation the employee prefers. “Where there is more than one reasonable accommodation that would not pose an undue hardship, the employer is not obliged to provide the accommodation preferred by the employee. However, an employer’s proposed accommodation will not be “reasonable” if a more favorable accommodation is provided to other employees for non-religious purposes, or, for example, **if it requires the employee to accept a reduction in pay rate or some other loss of a benefit or privilege of employment and there is an alternative accommodation that does not do so.** ” (EEOC Compliance Manual). I put it to you that taking an employee from a customer-facing position to a back-office position so materially alters the nature of the job, the skills it inculcates, and the promotion track it affords as to amount a loss of some of the benefits or privileges of employment in that position. It is this that I was getting at by insinuating the two options are at best equally burdensome to Disney (although neither is an _undue_ hardship). But from the employee’s perspective, they are not equally accommodating. And in light of this, the option that more fully accommodates (and note, I’d be prepared, confidently, to argue that sending an employee to the back isn’t really an accommodation at all) while representing an equal burden to the company is the one that must be adopted. How did the Alamo case turn out, by the by? It’s not the same as [this case](http://www.insidecounsel.com/Issues/2006/August%202006/Pages/Muslim-Employee-Beats-Alamo-RentACar.aspx), is it? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/210 "2010-08-25T20:49:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, Disney’s approach to the appearance of their employees is not a pretext. They style their employees “Cast members,” and their whole raison detre seems to be involve a highly specific imaginary role. They’re not simply “restaurant hostesses,” in other words, but characters in whatever theme the restaurant happens to be. Sorry, but this is a fiction. It’s no different than employers referring to their staff as “team members” or “associates” as opposed to “staff” or “peasants”. \*All \*Disney park employees are referred to as cast members. That includes members of management who walk around in (their own) suits, and custodial staff who work behind the scenes and are never in contact with guests. Hell, it even includes the captains of the two Disney cruise liners. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/211 "2010-08-25T21:12:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Well if that’s the case then its bullshit and the woman is entirely correct to sue. > > So you believe that as a matter of law, Disney’s offer to wait two months and work out of sight in the meantime is not a reasonable accomodation? Not if they’ve told other’s to just go ahead and wear THEIR religious garments but told THIS employee that she would have to wear Disney designed clothing because they were concerned about MUSLIM religious garments. If the action is targetted at her religion then I don’t think reasonable accomodations play into it at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768.md?page=10)