To be fair, the law hasn’t decided the issue yet.
As I understand it, the OP asks whether or not Disney should be allowed to act as it did. However, many people have been discussing the legality of Disney’s actions. But even if Disney did violate the Civil Rights Act that doesn’t mean that Disney acted inappropriately. The Civil Rights Act has a cool name but I imagine that almost everyone thinks it could be better in some way or another.
I don’t know very much about law or the CRA in particular but if it’s true that Disney violated the law, then I would count that against the law. People have said that “we don’t like hijabs” is not a good enough reason to prohibit an employee from wearing one in interactions with customers. Legally this may be true but why oughtn’t that be a good enough reason? I don’t see why religious dress practices are deserving of any more protection than any other dress practices (with regard to employment).
If there is a business-related reason for a certain dress code, I think it should be allowed. The weight of the reason doesn’t seem very important - it might even be that some manner of dress MIGHT (plausibly) have some effect. However, “we don’t like Muslims” is not business-related so it would be inappropriate to refuse someone a position because of something they believed. Also, if someone valued wearing magic underwear (like Mormons) then it would be inappropriate to prohibit them from wearing them unless it would plausibly have some business-related effect.
Apparently, I value the autonomy of a business owner to a greater (perhaps ridiculous?) degree than many people who have been posting. I can’t really say that I endorse the view I put forward 100%, since it does seem pretty extreme. But my sympathies definitely lie with Disney in this case.
I live in Orlando and know a lot of cast members and near as I can tell the current appearance code would exclude about half the people I know under 25, not just Muslims.
Just the restrictions on visible tattoos exclude a lot of people I know.
Short hair, no beard, no jewelry, natural colored hair, no long sideburns for men.
Minimal jewelry and makeup and no long fingernails for women.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-dress-code-for-disneyland-cast-members.htm
(my bolding) Oh, the irony!
I have no bone to pick in this one, not least because I truly don’t understand religious ‘needs’, regardless of creed or colour. Still, it does seem like this is the kind of issue which must come up time and again in a corporation the size of Disney so you’d think they’d already have some kind of policy in place to avoid this kind of publicity.
And just to add to the general opinion that no, magellan, this is nothing to do with PC - but thanks for trying.
This is opinion, not a factual statement of the law. Title VII allows dress codes to prohibit religious garb if it would pose undue hardship on Disney. Was this case an undue hardship? Maybe, maybe not. Similar cases have gone both ways. In some, the employers feeling it would violate esprit de corps was held enough of an undue hardship. In others, the courts have taken a dim view of companies unless they can prove a direct harm. Generally, the courts tend to side for allowing religious garb, but that’s far from guaranteed
Often the outcome hinges on if the company has attempted reasonable accommodation or not. From what I can tell, Disney was in the process of working on that with the employee. If she can prove they were just dicking around and weren’t going to budge an inch then the situation will be different than if she ignored Disney’s attempts to accommodate.
Another factor is if the dress code is only applied against some religions and not others or if it’s uniformly applied. If she can show Disney ignores employees wearing symbols of other religions then she’ll have more of a case than if Disney uniformly prohibits regardless of which religion it is.
Also in consideration is how deeply held this religious belief is. Based on some comments on the case, it seems her desire to wear the hajib was recent. She had worked for the company several years without wearing it or expressing an interest in wearing it. Which means it could be questioned if this is a true religious belief of hers or not. She may have dedicated herself recently to being a good Muslim despite previously not following the rules. She may be using this as a method of causing trouble, getting back at her boss or something like that. I’m not in a position to say which applies to her, but it very well may be a factor in how the case plays out.
In other words, sometimes a dress code does trump the Civil Rights Act.
Regardless, as with most court cases, the devil is in the details. Until a court has spoken, it can’t definitely be stated if this was a Title VII violation or not. Please don’t state your opinion as hard fact.
It’s what the law says. Wether the courts decide in her favor remains to be seen…but it’s what the law says.
It would be quite a stretch to say a scarf will cause undue hardship.
They’re accomadation was to hide her in a back room. Restuarants have tried that before with minorites, and were struck down for it.
There is a difference between a religious symbol, like a cross that is optional to wear for christians…and a head covering where it is a requirement and considered immodest not to wear one. we’re not talking about religious symbols here, that is a different issue.
This is the only situation that Disney could reasonably be expected to prevail. It seems to me it would be hard to prove, but we’ll see.
No. it doesn’t.
I wont and I haven’t. Please don’t assume that I have.
You keep mentioning the back room, inviting a reader to conclude that this is all they proposed as an accomodation.
But why don’t you also mention the claim that Boudlal was then told she could wear a head scarf, but it had to be designed by Disneyland’s costume department, and was actually fitted for that Disney-supplied scarf?
She apparently gave Disney two months before deciding they weren’t going to comply, but she worked there two years before this happened. All of those things should probably be factored into the “reasonable” question, don’t you think?
You may feel that Disney is still on the hook. That’s fine. But to simply claim that their only “accomodation” was to tell her to work in the back is not a fair summary, is it?
Having just moved from Orlando, Florida after living in the land of the mouse for many, many years I think Disney is in the right on this one. They have an extremely strict appearance code that applies to all cast members. It restricts things like your choice of haircut, hair color, facial hair, among other things. It restricts the type and placement of jewelry you can wear, and does not allow for tattoos in certain visible areas. As far as I know, they have always equally applied this standard, and are quite firm about it. If you can’t or won’t comply to it then you don’t have a job with them, it’s just that simple. For example: they only recently started allowing men to wear beards and they have to be fully developed and cut quite short. So an orthodox Jew, or Sikh man would have to cut both their hair and beard to work there. A man who wished to grow one would have to take a temporary leave or find a place behind scenes until it was filled in. If they weren’t willing to do so they would not have been hired in the first place. The Hijab is NOT a requirement of the Muslim faith anyway and she had apparently worked there for over two years complying with the dress code just fine. She’s looking for money.
After reading the background information, I think Disney hasn’t a prayer. She has worked on Ramadan without the hijab the past two years because she thought she had no right to press the issue. While studying for her citizenship exam, she arrived at the conclusion that she did have that right – and Disney agreed to accommodate her. They wanted to design the hijab, she agreed, they took two months, and the crucial date arrived with no action – to put it another way, Disney failed to act on their agreement in a timely manner. Of course, there are additional issues, such as “does asking her to work out of sight represent a harm that requires compensation, injunction, or specific performance?” (I don’t really know what sort of actions and remedies are specified in Title VII, nor what theory of law a violation falls under, nor whether that’s going to be the law that this suit is brought under, but it seems like a crucial question)
Case closed, then.
It’s clearly not something she felt sufficiently strongly about. Accommodations for religiously clothing must surely be on the basis of clothing that a person believes they must wear.
The fact they she didn’t find the wearing to be sufficiently important to stand as a point of principle for two years indicates that the item of clothing is not a religious necessity, merely a preference.
question answered it seems. carry on
Just substitute in Dennis Kucinich’s wife and you will feel much better. 
You asshole, now I’VE got that picture dancing around in my head except she’s not prancing, shes doing a slow seductive belly dance. MY EYES ARE BLEEDING.
Yeah but when liberal stupidity gets something wrong, we do things like preserve a barren Alaskan tundra from oil exploitation. When the bigots get something wrong, black men get lynched for talking back to white men.
Well, you usually get around that by requiring that employees be able to speak Italian.
We’re still talking about cheese, right?
Nope. Until this time, she was unaware that she had a legal right to enforce.
Furthermore, it is entirely legitimate for people’s religious beliefs to change, for example, from a Muslim who believes a head covering is optional to one who believes it’s mandatory.
I was looking up the status of the Hooter’s law suit, and it looks like they settled out of court.
However, the wiki article mentions that Hooter’s has a dress code declaration that they (presumadely) have the employees read and sign (in essence, agreeing to comply with) before they begin their employment.
So, my question is, can you still sue to wear the hijab, even after agreeing to adhere to the dress code as a condition of employment?
Where does the law say “Allowing an employee to wear a scarf is not going to significantly impact disney”
But its not a fact.
They gave her options, workable options, and they were in the process of an even MORE workable option when she decided she would rather just sue Disney.
Disney has had a "no facial hair policy since at least I was in college, this meant no hasidic jewish guys unless they were backstage or wearing a costume that would cover their heads.
I disagree. Attempts at reasonable accomodation make all the difference.
Yes. It does (wow this is so much easier than debating).
I think it was pretty obvious that it couldn’t be hard fact because it was incorrect but you do present it as if it is more than emre opinion.
I think you are reading this bass ackwards. Just agreeing to do something doesn’t mean IDsney is agreeing to do it because they have a legal obligation to do it.