# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/121 "2010-08-20T17:04:18Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > I feel sure a court would take some interest in why someone had suddenly changed their mind. > > > > For example, if a Christian had been working on Sundays for years and suddenly announced that they had become a lot more devout and someone else would have to do the Sunday shifts I can’t imagine a court just effectively rubber stamping that. > > > > Simply for the reason that Disney’s lawyers have let things go this far I can’t believe that this case is as clear cut as some of those on either side of the argument are making it out to be. > > The answer here is pretty clear cut – “I learned about the law.” That’s not going to be held against you. But the court will, presumably, take an interest in whether that is a true representation of the facts. (I’m not suggesting it isn’t.) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > In the UK, Sikhs are exempt from Helmet requirements both on building sites (and other hard hat areas) and on motorcycles. > > This isn’t true in the United States. I gathered that. I was just pointing out that your statement was not universally applicable and giving an example of where a court would want to investigate someone’s sincerity. Obviously pretending to convert to the Sikh religion would be an outrageous example but it shows that a court cannot be blind to these matters. ---
**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 20, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/122 "2010-08-20T17:07:05Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > See [Goldman v. Weinberger](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0475_0503_ZO.html), which I think is still good law. > > [Nice find](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12819899&postcount=49). It is still good law (well, I didn’t Shepardize it or anything), but as my Civ Pro professor taught: you should really try to find a case that has the outcome you’re looking for when supporting a proposition. _Goldman_ stands for the proposition that the federal judiciary (an increasing number of whom probably have no prior military service) are unable to make the grossest of distinctions between military necessity and discipline and plain old inertia. Long thread, I’m on my lunch break, heavily medicated, etc. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/123 "2010-08-20T17:33:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > See [Goldman v. Weinberger](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0475_0503_ZO.html), which I think is still good law. Yes, it’s good law, but it also upheld the right of the Air Force to tell Simcha Goldman that he couldn’t wear a yarmulke in uniform. 🙂 ETA: er… yeah, I see this is old news. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/124 "2010-08-20T18:49:20Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > Case closed, then. > > Nope. Until this time, she was unaware that she had a legal right to enforce. What legal right? Is it specified in the US constitution ? ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/125 "2010-08-20T18:53:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > As far as the legal aspects of the matter are concerned, Disney is unlikely to prevail. Since it has routinely allowed cast members to display visible religions clothing or jewelry in the past, **it cannot now claim that its position is neutral.** > See [Goldman v. Weinberger](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0475_0503_ZO.html), which I think is still good law. That is not Disneys claim. They were willing to allow her to wear her religious clothing. She just did not want to wait for them to make one for her. I granted her having to wait two months and still not have the Disney approved one ready for her is ridiculus. Since they failed to provide her the garment in an acceptable time for when she wanted to wear it I think they should have let her go ahead and wear her own in her normal work position. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/126 "2010-08-20T18:56:14Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > [@acsenray](#): > > > > Nope. Until this time, she was unaware that she had a legal right to enforce. > > What legal right? Is it specified in the US constitution ? I think she’s relying on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/127 "2010-08-20T19:02:21Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > What legal right? Is it specified in the US constitution ? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/128 "2010-08-20T19:10:48Z")
Here’s how the Ninth Circuit describes the process: > [@](#): > > Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating on the basis of religion. It defines the term “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief,” and imposes a duty of reasonable accommodation on employers. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). It is therefore unlawful “for an employer not to make reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, for the religious practices of his employees and prospective employees.” Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 2271-72, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977). > > We assess Title VII religious discrimination claims using a two-part analysis. Heller v. EBB Auto Co., 8 F.3d 1433, 1438 (9th Cir.1993). First, the employee must establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination. Id. Second, if the employee does so, the burden shifts to the employer to show that it “`negotiate[d] with the employee in an effort reasonably to accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs.'” Id. (quoting EEOC v. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504, 1513 (9th Cir.1989)). Where the negotiations do not produce a proposal by the employer that would eliminate the religious conflict, the employer must either accept the employee’s proposal or demonstrate that it would cause undue hardship were it to do so. EEOC v. Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 615 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077, 109 S.Ct. 1527, 103 L.Ed.2d 832 (1989). Only if the employer can show that no accommodation would be possible without undue hardship is it excused from taking the necessary steps to accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs. See Heller, 8 F.3d at 1440; Townley Eng’g, 859 F.2d at 615. From _Opuku-Boateng v. California_, 95 F. 3d 1461, 9th Circuit (1996) ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/129 "2010-08-20T19:19:59Z")
I’ve read this whole thread fairly carefully, although I certainly might have missed something. Has it been established that Disney denied her right to wear the hijab on religious grounds? Is anyone other than her claiming that? ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/130 "2010-08-20T19:23:24Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I’ve read this whole thread fairly carefully, although I certainly might have missed something. Has it been established that Disney denied her right to wear the hijab on religious grounds? Is anyone other than her claiming that? I’m pretty sure they didn’t but I think it’s been pretty well established that that’s not relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/131 "2010-08-20T19:28:49Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > I’m pretty sure they didn’t but I think it’s been pretty well established that that’s not relevant. I thought that’s what the whole Title Vll argument was about. ---
**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 20, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/132 "2010-08-20T19:35:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > See [Goldman v. Weinberger](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0475_0503_ZO.html), which I think is still good law. > > Yes, it’s good law, but it also upheld the right of the Air Force to tell Simcha Goldman that he couldn’t wear a yarmulke in uniform. 🙂 > > ETA: er… yeah, I see this is old news. Yes, but the holding made it clear that the Air Force was allowed to tell Col. Goldman to take of his yarmulke because its policy was neutral (ie., barred _any_ visible decoration of religious significance). I happen to know that the Disney policy (or at least, its application) is not neutral. [QUOTE=Contrapuntual] I’ve read this whole thread fairly carefully, although I certainly might have missed something. Has it been established that Disney denied her right to wear the hijab on religious grounds? Is anyone other than her claiming that? [/QUOTE] We won’t get the whole story for a while, but it appears that Disney denied her the right to wear her own hijab and instead said she could wear a Disney “uniform” hijab that they would provide. She agreed to this, and filed suit when Disney failed to provide her with one. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/133 "2010-08-20T19:36:16Z")
I haven’t seen much about the point that the point that this person was allowed to work a different job where the head scarf was not considered a problem. Is there some kind of law that says people are entitled to the particular job that they want? ---
**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 20, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/134 "2010-08-20T19:41:46Z")
People are entitled to the particular job they have been _hired to do_, typically, unless the employer can show a legitimate reason why they can’t do it anymore. For example, in the case of Disney, there are stringent height requirements for costumed characters. This serves two purposes: 1. In the case of “face” characters (the ones who don’t wear big furry suits; typically, the ones playing human characters), it ensures they all look more or less the same, which means the sets, equipment, and costumes can be largely standardized. 2. In the case of “fur” characters, the big expensive suits can be standardized. Also, many of the fur character suits are gigantic, and putting people smaller than, say, 4’10" in one means Mickey becomes less of a cute waving mouse and more of a Godzilla opponent with big ears. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/135 "2010-08-20T19:43:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > We won’t get the whole story for a while, but it appears that Disney denied her the right to wear her own hijab and instead said she could wear a Disney “uniform” hijab that they would provide. She agreed to this, and filed suit when Disney failed to provide her with one. But did they deny it on religious grounds? Many posters seem to be making that assumption and I’m just wondering what the basis for that is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/136 "2010-08-20T19:45:36Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > We won’t get the whole story for a while, but it appears that Disney denied her the right to wear her own hijab and instead said she could wear a Disney “uniform” hijab that they would provide. She agreed to this, and filed suit when Disney failed to provide her with one. So Disney “…initiated good faith efforts to accommodate reasonably the employee’s religious practices?” (EEOC v. Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 615 (9th Cir. 1988)) And in the interim, offered her a place to work out of view of customers? > [@](#): > > 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. From _EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC_, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1006, Dist. Ct, Dist. of Arizona (2006). This seems to suggest that Disney’s proposed interim solution, which did not require the removal of the scarf, would be considered reasonable. ---
**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 20, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/137 "2010-08-20T19:55:07Z")
Well, it does appear that Disney’s proposed _interim_ solution was reasonable, but if its proposed long-term solution was “a hat”, I’m not sure that would qualify as a good faith effort at reasonable accomodation. I suspect she’ll also have a case under the California constitution, if she chooses to pursue it. ---
**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 20, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/138 "2010-08-20T19:57:21Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > We won’t get the whole story for a while, but it appears that Disney denied her the right to wear her own hijab and instead said she could wear a Disney “uniform” hijab that they would provide. She agreed to this, and filed suit when Disney failed to provide her with one. > > But did they deny it on religious grounds? Many posters seem to be making that assumption and I’m just wondering what the basis for that is. It doesn’t matter whether their grounds for denying it are religious. They have a positive obligation to make reasonable accommodation of religious practices. The real issue is the one Bricker points out – does what Disney did qualify as reasonable accommodation? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/139 "2010-08-20T20:03:05Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > It doesn’t matter whether their grounds for denying it are religious. They have a positive obligation to make reasonable accommodation of religious practices. I see. Thanks. ---
**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 20, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/140 "2010-08-20T20:04:56Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > But did they deny it on religious grounds? Many posters seem to be making that assumption and I’m just wondering what the basis for that is. I refer my learned friend to the answers given moments ago: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12820031&postcount=62](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12820031&postcount=62) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12821357&postcount=76](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12821357&postcount=76) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768.md?page=8)