So it’s the stupid vs the bigoted. If that’s the case, I’m going to have to go with the bigoted. I mean the bigoted will get some stuff wrong, the stuff that touches on their biases. But the stupid’s stupidity will touch everything. I guess we could make them decide every decision by coin flip, so they’d get half right. may I recommend… 
If they didn’t hire any black people, would you think that was justified as part of “creating a highly-branded experience”?
What if they made their black employees paint their faces white to blend in? (Or else they could work in the back, of course.)
And if it’s not OK for them to say “We don’t want our brand to be associated with anyone who looks too black”, then why is it OK for them to say “We don’t want our brand associated with anyone who looks too much like an observant Muslim?”
I’d appreciate a more thoughtful answer than “rolleyes”, assuming you actually intend to have a debate about the issue.
Asked and answered. The OP refers, approvingly, to what he asserts was Ralph Lauren’s decision not to hire models of color when creating an image of WASPy privilege (as to whether RL ever actually did this, I express no opinion). It would seem that if the OP were Congress, he would draft to law to allow these kind of employment practices.
Because a hajib is not part of a person’s body?
Nor is religion to begin with. Anti-discriminatory laws cover more than just the physical.
It’s been the Magic Police State from day one. When old Walt was alive, he was one hell of a union-buster, anti-semite, and informant for the FBI. See Walt Disney: Hollywood’s Dark Prince, by Marc Eliot.
I’m probably committing a forum faux pas here, but can’t you slippery slope this argument?
Couldn’t you then state that any clothing, hairstyle or body grooming choice that is based on a person’s religion cannot be “discriminated against”?
Since you asked nicely this time, I’ll answer your first question here. I don’t think any of a hostess’s job—in the generic sense—is compromised by wearing a Hajib. None. We are not talking about some physical danger of her suffering some Isadora Duncan type fate. But greeting people, handing out menus, and seating them is not the whole of her duties. Appearance matters. And it sometimes matters more than others. For instance, if I were going to open an Italian restaurant, one that I wanted to come off as really authentic Italian, don’t you think I might have pictures of Italy, play Italian music, and have people that might pass as Italian. Now some Italians are quite light and some are quite dark, like lighter skinned blacks, so there’s quite a bit of latitude there. But do you think it might detract from the brand experience I’m trying to create if I had a Sikh with a Turban as Head Waiter? Or someone wearing a dashiki?
So, her duties as a hostess are not the problem, it’s her duties as a Cast Member that are. And THAT is the job. she’s not just a hostess, she’s also a cast member that is counted on to enhance the Disney brand.
If you couldn’t show that it was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (or you’re the U.S. military, see, e.g., Goldman v. Weinberger, among others).
Conforming to minimum conventional standards of hygiene would be considered a BFOQ.
In these types of situations, I would support such a law, or exemption. That doesn’t mean that people behind the scenes at Disney couldn’t wear their religious garb, as was offered to the woman in question. But, no. Better to whine and sue and join the ranks of the Oh-I’m-So-Persecuted!
Of course you could! This is why Disney is free to fire her if they can show a legitimate problem with permitting the religious behaviour/dress.
IOW, the law is, from the very start, a balancing act. And that’s okay.
The story gets a little more complicated:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/19/national/main6786918.shtml
-apparently Disney considers it an “on-stage” position
-according to Disney there was some attempt at compromise, possibly including a “Disney-supplied head scarf” or a back-stage position in the interim
-according to this article L. A. Times Link Disney suggested a hat instead of a head scarf
-the incident began because Boudlal wanted to wear something in time for Ramadan
-from the article quoted above it appears that Boudlal worked there for 2 1/2 years with no head scarf
So some attempts at compromise were made, and it’s not simply a case of Disney enforcing a blanket “no head scarf” ban (although the “hat” idea is obviously a very poor compromise).
I see this less as an example of “political correctness”, and more of two different cultural viewpoints at odds. In this situation, I tend to subscribe to the “job-as-brand” viewpoint. I would view her (or anyone working at Disney) to be “on stage”, and thus be required to wear whatever is mandated.
However, I also believe that it would improve Disney’s image as a company if they were to come up with an “official” head scarf that all non-performing (e.g. characters, jugglers etc.) Muslim staff could wear.
I can understand Boudlal’s desire to wear her head scarf for Ramadan, but the above article makes it seem as if she already went without for 2 years or so. In this case I would argue that she should wait until a compromise head scarf is decided on, and in the meantime work in a “backstage” position until then.
That’s the rub, isn’t it? Defining what constitutes a BFOQ?
The question isn’t whether there exists a right for employers to discriminate based on BFOQs, but whether wearing a hajib violates that.
They can’t, as long as they don’t conflict with a bona fide occupational requirement. If I have a religion that prohibits me from wearing anything on my head, then I can’t work in a kitchen, because kitchen workers need to wear headgear to keep hair from getting in the food. But if I’m working a job where that (or other bona fide objections) isn’t an issue? Then no, they can’t discriminate.
magellan, if you opened an Italian restaurant and refused to hire someone because they didn’t look Italian, then you’d be facing a lawsuit faster than you could shout “Lawyer!”. And rightly so.
The lawyers specialize in employment discrimination and give examples that indicate management’s actions to be discriminatory under California law. Of course it’s a lawyer’s website who would like clients and the website’s examples may be too non-specific in order to attract potential clients.
What I am saying is that unless there is some detail about a company’s brand that is damaged by headscrarf-wearing employees (or any employee wearing traditional religious outfits) then I do not support discriminating against employees who choose to wear their religious garments. I also think the law will back my opinion up, but I could be wrong.
So, are you saying that and Italian restaurant could refuse to employ someone who looked, Scandinavian, Chinese or West African as the head waiter? On the grounds that they did not look authentically Italian? I’m not sure how well that would go down in court.
You’re not the only guilty party here, but take one for the team would you ? It’s a hijab. I, A.
Not to be confused with “haji” (A, I), which is an honorific for people who have completed their hajr to Mecca), or alternatively the new US Army synonym for “towelhead”.
Absolutely. I was going off the OP’s original spelling.
Well, once it’s shown that the employment practice falls disproportionately on members of a particular religion, the burden of persuasion transfers to those who assert that it is a BFOQ. And “brand management,” which seems like a clever way of saying “'cause we want to,” doesn’t really carry that burden.
He sounds swell; judging from what another poster wrote about the company’s attempts to accommodate their employee it sounds like Walt’s special magic has dissipated a bit.