Politically Correct Stupidity: Episode 3,872,390,576

It would be interesting to hear if there has been instances of Jewish employees who wished to wear yarmulkes, or the rather stylish hats often seen on Hasidic Jews.

But I would venture to guess that it falls equally on all religions who wish to wear specific exterior clothing.

It is not enough to show that more than one religion is affected. If the employment practice imposes a burden on one or more religious groups more than others, the practice must be related to a BFOQ. It is not an analysis of intent; it is an analysis of results.

You call that PC? A few days ago a Swedish woman sued a cheese company for having a commercial which included the line: “The taste is in the holes.” Which the woman found very unpleasant and horrible sexists. Now that’s serious PC business right there. Take it from the Swedes. They do it better than all.

Take it from a self-described expert : if the holes taste like cheese, they’re past their due date.

I think the Scandinavian would be the least problematic, then the West African, then the Chinese fellow. Some Italians do have blond hair and blue eyes, given it’s proximity to Switzerland and Austria. But dress would probably be just as important.

Ha! Well that would then be Episode 3,872,390,577.

I’ve heard it said that Disney considers all their park employees “cast members” (at least this was claimed in a TV documentary I saw about Disney World), so it wouldn’t surprise me if in Disney-speak any position where one interacts with the public is “on stage”. That doesn’t make it so in any reasonable sense of the world.

That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney’s position is somewhat more reasonable than the one articulated in the OP.

Did this woman win her lawsuit? What is the complaint? Someone once again sued anyone for anything. Without the verdict how can anybody draw a conclusion? I would agree that some jobs may involve a reasonable dress code. Does someone have a different viewpoint?

So lets sum this up. Someone has an opinion about the subject of dress requirements for jobs that is different from the OP’s. Therefore, the sky is falling.

Exactly. If there is a regular official dress code, one that is known and has been in effect, then it is part of the regular work conditions, the conditions of employment. If it only applies to her, or if it just now started (because of only her) then there is a problem.

Just a few random questions I thought of while reading through this:

If someone showed up dressed like a ‘gangsta’ (no shirt, hat on sideways, pants down to their knees, tatoos, gold necklaces, flashing gang signs, etc.) then would their workplace be justified in sending them home to change, or at least shoving them into the back room?

Somehow Hooters manages to keep the small breasted women out of sight and not get sued into bankruptcy. Which always stuck me as a lot more discriminatory than if you can wear obvious signs of your religion or not. How does Hooters manage to not get sued by small tittied women anyway?

Does a Jew have a right to work in a pork processing plant and refuse to do anything that they think would violate kosher laws? Could a stripper wear a hajib, refuse to take it off, and remain a stripper? At what point is it reasonable to just shrug your shoulders and go ‘your religion just ain’t compatible with this job’?

Disney does have some arabic themed spots. Anything involving Aladdin, Epcot center has at least one themed area that Muslim dress wouldn’t be out of character in, it wouldn’t be too hard to theme a hajib into a pirate headscarf although it’s an open question on how acceptable that’d be, and, of course, there’s always the option of working where customers won’t see. It seems to me that the problem is not that Disney won’t allow the hajib, but that it isn’t allowed in that specific position and the woman refused to work at alternative position.

In general I’d support Disney’s side on this. Companies have always had the ability to enforce dress to present a certain image. There is some balancing to that of course, companies don’t have total freedom in controlling dress. However this doesn’t sound like the company went out of line. They have a general dress code that specifically covered what to do in cases of religious dress. They were working with the woman on alternatives that would be acceptable. Then she goes and wears the thing anyway, knowing it is against company policy and would probably get her in trouble. Absent more damning facts that I’ve heard in this thread, Disney actually acted kinder than I’d expect. Most companies would fire you if you willingly and knowingly violated their rules despite that they were trying to work with you for alternatives.

If I wanted to work at a bank they wouldn’t let me come into work with my sleeves rolled up, flashing my tattoos, my hair styled in a Mohawk. The bank can’t help that I’m a member of my culture any more than Disney can help that this woman is a member of her religion. But surely my tattoos and hair have nothing to do with my duties? Wrong. As an employee you are representing your company. I hope this woman’s case gets drop-kicked.

Freezer burn. :frowning:

CMC fnord!

To help give me some perspective on this issue, I tried to imagine Ms. Boudal sueing Hooters because she wanted to wear a head scarf while working as a hostess.

Sure, I think Disney is being silly, but they do have the right, and she’s being a bit of a shit about it. “Oh dear, working in the back with those Mexicans is so humiliating.”

Whatever.

Could you tell me which part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against “subculture” discrimination? You know, akin to the protection it affords for religious practices?

If a person is unable to meet the requirements of a job, the Civil Rights Act does not require an employer to hire them anyway. Disney did not send her home because she was a Muslim. She was a Muslim without consequence during the hiring process and presumably worked as a Muslim, again without consequence. She decided not to follow the dress code policy, and the same punishment for anyone not following dress code policy was applied to her. Disney doesn’t care WHY she wasn’t following dress code, and that is why the Civil Rights Act doesn’t protect her in this case. In fact, I’m surprised they even gave her the option of working out of dress code as long as it was out of public view. It sounds like Disney tried to be extra accommodating for her.

This point has already been addressed repeatedly above. A claim of employment discrimination can come in one of two forms: discriminatory intent and disparate impact. A claim for disparate impact will lie if the practice particularly burdens members of one or more religious groups and is not related to a bona fide occupational qualification. This is the case even if the employment practice was put in place without any intent to discriminate.

If you are not going to familiarize yourself with the law that you’re making pronouncements about, at least familiarize yourself with the information already provided in the thread.

It seems that Disney HR goes to great lengths to please and keep that muslim. I guess an Odinist guy who wanted to grow a beard who have been fired on the spot.

So yes, Muzzney doesn’t want to be labelled TEH RAYSCIST OMG.

Is it your position that a dress code which does not allow things to be worn on the head has a disparate impact on Muslims? I know quite a few redneck Nascar fans who would happily wear a ball cap to work if it didn’t violate the dress code who would disagree with you.

gangsta is not a religion, and is not mentioned in the civil rights act.

you go to different hooters than I do.

the point where it isn’t compatible with the job. The act says the employer must make reasonable accomidations. Allowing an employee to wear a scarf is not going to significantly impact disney.

You cant force people to hide in the back room because of race or religioin.

You may support disneys side, but the law doesn’t. Dress code does not trump civil rights act.

It would fall under a dress code without any religious symbols such as a cross or skull cap.