Her actions point to the notion that her religious expression must be embraced by all. And to have a problem with some aspect of that expression is a violation off her rights.
If I recall correctly, Disney refers to all Park employees as “cast members”.
Did Disney tell her that they would not allow Muslims to serve as hostesses in the restaurant? No, they are allowing her to serve in that position if she conforms to a standardized dress code.
Is it Disney’s fault that the woman’s religion is not compatible with those standards?
I couldn’t find the info you’re referring to on that site. And I think Disney is free to manage their brand in a way that THEY think serves them the best.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. But the distinction is not if someone is Muslim, it’s the degree to which their appearance and action go to the furtherance of the brand. She was a practicing Muslim the day before she wore the hajib, and guess what? No problem.
The whole park is a branded experience. Have you not been there? While some employees don actual character costumes, every aspect of the park is brand managed.
Why don’t YOU trying to answer the question that you decided to reply to?
Do those standards have anything to do—substantively and beyond some vague and protean worry about “brand management”—with the duties of the position?
If not, then fault doesn’t enter into it. We decided, in 1964 and routinely since, that employment policies that disproportionately affect certain races, sexes, or religious group and which policies have only a tenuous or nonexistent relationship to the duties belonging to the position, may not be indulged by the employer—this is separate from whether they have any discriminatory intent or not.
Unfortunately, based on the extreme adverse reaction to the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” I would say that the worry about "brand management’ is certainly a lot more than “vague and protean.”
Disney is trying to create a highly branded experience. They find it valuable to do so. And controlling it over the years is one reason why their brand is one of the strongest in the entire world.
:rolleyes:
That they do: 9bolding mine)
No one is arguing that her hajib wearing interferes with her doing the physical duties she had as a hostess. It’s about the brand. You seem to not hold branding in very high esteem from the way you refer to it in your first sentence. The fact is that it is VERY important to a company. Perhaps the most valuable thing a company has.
The point is that this “cast member’s” actions are not enhancing the Disney brand, they are distracting from it.
It’s certainly nothing new. Disney is pretty famous for having extremely strict dress and grooming codes for its “cast members”, which include every employee that interacts with the public down to the girl who works the cash register at the Disney Store in the mall in Knoxville.
From Magellan’s link below:
It seems they’re up front about it being an issue. If the girl didn’t warn them going in, it seems like it’s her fault.
Not that this validates Magellan’s partisan stab in the thread title.
You’re avoiding the question: to what legitimate end can an employer restrict the wearing of a hijab? “It doesn’t match our brand” is far too vague to be anything better than “We don’t like hijabs”, which in turn is no more a justification than “We don’t like Muslims”. IOW, there needs to be a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification that justifies discrimination. Or do I have this right, lawyers?
Why do I now picture Hillary prancing around in the buff, possibly with bead necklaces involved ? I don’t know, but I know I hate you for it.
Reading between the lines, this woman is not objecting to wearing the uniform required for “cast members” working in “food operations”: she simply wants to wear a headscarf as well as the uniform. So, is that a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs?
(One problem is that Disney has decided that this costume is appropriate for a young Muslim woman – having done their research by finding out what American men fantasise about them wearing, rather that by finding out what most Muslim women prefer to wear.)
I guess it’s only partisan if you accept that the stupidity of political correctness is much more closely aligned with the left than the right. Congratulations for getting something right. 
Oh surely it’s more aligned with the left. The right is all about being bigoted jerks. 
And I think that employment shouldn’t be contingent on race, sex, creed, religion, and a few other categories. Unless the head covering significantly interferes with her duties, she should be able to wear it. I don’t really have a problem denying Disney a right to project a “No muslims here” image.
OK, I was worried that those two words might trip up the Tea Partiers among us.
Vague = ambiguous, equivocal, unarticulated. The worries about “brand management” are vague because we are never informed how, concretely, they might affect the ability to do the job. We are instead treated to generalities: it might make people upset, the restaurant just has a look. Here, on the other hand, would be an example of a not-vague worry: the position involves being in close physical proximity to a device with fast-moving components that might catch a person’s flowing headgear and, in so doing, jeopardize that person’s safety.
Protean = shapeshifting, variable. This is related to vagueness. Protean worries are helpful to those who would like to avoid the requirements of the Civil Rights Act because, when you refuse to provide a fixed, concrete set of problems the headgear poses, it is impossible to craft reasonable accommodation around it.
Frankly, the opposition to the Cordoba House, which issued from much more heat than light, is perhaps an object lesson in “vague and protean worries.” Of course, we live in an age where experiencing feelings is too often mistaken for thinking about ideas, so I suppose the confusion is not all that surprising.