Thanks thats much better (oh and the Obama girl) yes much better
I don’t know that knowledge of a legal right to enforce has anything to do with it. Her religious necessity seems to be a little less necessary than she now claims.
Religious beliefs on the other hand can indeed change. But changing religious beliefs is not on the record.
No, it doesn’t. If her prior understanding was that she had no option but to choose between the job and the hijab, not being aware that you have the right to practice your religion despite an employer’s edicts does not count against you, it is not evidence that the practice is not “necessary” and it is not evidence that your belief is insincere.
That sound to me very much like an opinion you’ve pulled from thin air.
I don’t see how you can credibly say that it isn’t evidence that the practice is not ‘necessary’.
If a rule of doing or not doing something is fundamental to your religion it’s hard to see how not complying with that rule can be taken for anything other than it not being as fundamental as you are claiming.
It may not be evidence that you are insincere but it is certainly evidence that it is not so important to your following your faith that you will not countenance disobedience to the rule for something - such as taking a job that is to your liking.
As to the point about being able to change your mind - how far does that go?
Would you, for example, be able to take up a job that clearly required you do do something that was contrary to some religion of which you were not an adherent and then convert to that religion and demand compensation because you could no longer do the job?
If you don’t know that you have a right to enforce your religious beliefs against your employer, it’s not evidence that it’s not your religious belief if you choose not to starve. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right. You don’t lose it because on prior occasions you didn’t know you had it.
Islam is well known for allowing exceptions for necessity and avoiding hardship. Does that mean that no Islamic practice is necessary?
Note that compensation is not the key here: It’s accommodation. What is your job? What are the fundamental tasks for that job? If the accommodation would still allow you to perform the fundamental tasks for the job, then the employer must accommodate.
That is my position. Unfortunately for your acquaintances, the courts have yet to accept the equivalence between watching car races and practicing the Islamic faith.
That’s not true. Here, for instance, a federal court holds that the EEOC made out a prima facie case of religious discrimination in employment sufficient to withstand summary judgment when the EEOC showed that an adverse employment decision was made in response to employees’ refusal to remove their hijabs.
Not really, the law recognizes that a person’s religious beliefs and practices may change over time. While the belief must be held sincerely, it need not be held since birth. Perhaps she had some kind of Damascene conversion?
I’d agree that if there was no alternative than to fail to be able to minimally provide for yourself and your family then you could claim that you were effectively acting under duress and no inference could reasonably be made about the religious necessity of whatever is involved.
However, that’s almost certainly not the case here. I think the person in question got a job that she found agreeable and was perfectly prepared to dress for that job. Then, once she discovered something about the law, she suddenly became a lot more militant about religious observance.
We’ll have to see what a court decides about that.
I don’t think that follows. It does make allowances (for example: pregnant women do not have to observe Ramadan) but I doubt that it would consider not having one job rather than another as qualifying hardship.
Quite. If your employer can make such accommodation. In the vast majority of cases this is simply not an issue and accommodations are made. There are, however, instances where accommodation cannot be made because of the nature of the job. The extreme case would be something such as a film company not being obliged to take note of sex and disability legislation and employ a 30st black woman with no legs to play Lance Armstrong.
There will be many levels between that and jobs where appearance is of no importance whatsoever.
However, if an employer is setting up some sort of theatrical environment, such as Disney seem to do, it seems perverse to insist that they ruin the effect because they cannot work out a way to disguise some religiously required dress to fit in.
I’m sure that, in this case, the devil will be in the detail. That is if it ever goes to court!
Really? Do you think the “casting” and “costume” requirements for the “role” of desk clerk are genuinely that exacting? Do you think they are “cast members” in the same way that performers in South Pacific at your local dinner theater are cast members? Or is the term not rather a marketing gimmick?
That was just a general dress code which, I agree, falls entirely within the bounds of the relevant legislation. I’m not entirely clear about the Disney case: If they simply had a dress code against hats, then surely they must fail. If, OTOH, they have some sort of prescription that all employees must dress to a specific theme and that theme was incompatible with some religious dress or ornamentation, then the case would, I presume, be a good deal less clear cut.
(I’m assuming that the second case is applicable because I can’t see that Disney’s lawyers would have allowed it to go this far if it were the former. Possibly a dangerous assumption).
I can see that that would be the case, but, again, the devil must be in the detail. Would a court simply accept that someone who was perfectly prepared to disobey a religious rule suddenly felt they could not or would they ask for some proof that the person in question had in some way changed their attitude to their religion?
I don’t know but I assume it cannot be absolutely clear cut because that would enable people to ‘gimmick the system’ - by, for example, allowing someone to claim to be a Sikh in order to avoid wearing a motorcycle helmet where it was required by law.
Two things. First off, you can sue for any damned reason at all. I could sue you with the stated reason being ‘Because I feel like being an annoying prick’. Stuff like that gets thrown out the instant a judge looks at it, and I’d probably face some sort of consequence for wasting the courts time. But still, you can sue anyone for any reason.
Second, you can not sign away your rights. You can choose to not exercise them, but you can’t sign them away. If it is your right to wear a hajib on the job, which it is except for the undue burden limitation already mentioned, then it is your right regardless of what you sign.* By making them sign, Hooters is documenting that the employees are aware of the code. They can’t later claim they didn’t know a hajib was against the dress code. However, that doesn’t address the question on if the dress code is legal or not.
- I suppose I should note for the pedantic around here, there are exceptions to not being able to sign away rights. They are rare and courts tend to be rather cautious in allowing it. Offhand, the only example I can think of is non-compete clauses, which is a whole different legal mess than Title VII.
I don’t know because I wouldn’t be seen dead in any Disney facility but from what I’ve seen the customer facing staff at these places all seem to be required to dress up to a considerable extent.
I presume it is to what extent the hajib would spoil the general effect that the court would have to consider.
I can’t see a court telling a company that they are not entitled to their business model - in this case having everyone dress up for a consistent theme to provide some sort of ‘blanket’ experience. So, again, the devil is in the detail.
I worked for a Disney park and a third-party contractor on Disney property for five years (on-property third party employees are also required to adhere to the Disney “Look Book”).
I’ve never heard of anyone being denied the right to dress in a manner befitting their religious views, except costumed characters (who are distinct from cast members). For example, Aladdin can’t wear a crucifix while in costume (and, without evident irony, has to be white :D)
Your belief has to be sincere, but your willingness to compromise is not an indication of insincerity.
The whole point of the statute was to give individuals a right to demand accommodation from their employers. A court is not going to hold it against you that you didn’t demand it before. That would essentially defeat the whole purpose of the law.
Genuine safety requirements almost always trump religion. Employers can require you to remove scarf-like garments around heavy machinery. Police departments can require you to keep your beard trimmed short.
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.
In the UK, Sikhs are exempt from Helmet requirements both on building sites (and other hard hat areas) and on motorcycles.
Ok, thanks for answering.
I was wondering about this. You say you cannot be forced to sign away your rights, but then again, the way I see it, you don’t have to accept a job that asks you to violate your principles, either.
I can’t but help to feel that there is an unspoken subtext here: The woman has “right” to this specific job, and it trumps the employer’s [Disney, in the OP] “right” to a dress code and marketing technique. In Hooter’s case, IIRC, they were hiring females only for their “server” staff, and a male challenged that.
I don’t think the dress code was a new requirement, it wasn’t “sprung” on the employee, nor one applied to some but not all employees. (If it was, I would be more sympathetic to the employee.) I imagine that with Disney (as well as Hooter’s), a dress code is made known to the prospective employee pretty early on, usually during the interview process.
In Hooter’s case, I support the company’s decision to use an all female staff marketing technique, but I would not support one that hired caucasian females only. I can’t put my finger on why my “gut” leads me this way. I guess I need to have an attitude adjustment from the more enlightened board members here. 
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, which I think is still good law.
Surely, the case must rest upon whether the wearing of the hajib actually prevents ‘getting into character’ to the extent that everyone else is.
I’d agree that if the rule Disney is defending is simply: ‘no head wear’ they must, surely, fail. (And why have their lawyers not told them this?)
If, on the other hand, the hajib is in some way seriously preventing the employee ‘getting into character’ whilst everyone else is then the case is a lot more complex.
The answer here is pretty clear cut – “I learned about the law.” That’s not going to be held against you.
In the UK, Sikhs are exempt from Helmet requirements both on building sites (and other hard hat areas) and on motorcycles.
[/QUOTE]
This isn’t true in the United States.
The law says that employers must make reasonable accommodation for religious practices. The law puts the burden on the employer to prove that such and such requirements are fundamental to performance of the job. The burden is not on employees to seek out only jobs with employers who don’t have arbitrary rules that interfere with religious practices.
I worked in Disneyland, not the hotels, but yes, all employees are given guidelines as part of their hiring as to appropriate attire. Such guidelines are also usually posted in the Employee’s Only area of the location.
I would bet that they do have attire they are supposed to wear. When I was in Disneyland, everyone who either dealt with or was exposed to the public as part of their jobs is considered “on stage”. Uniforms are referred to as “costumes”. I would be really shocked if this woman was not told of this when she was hired. Or what went through her mind when she was taken on a tour of the building where all of the Disney costumes were stored and told “This is where you will get your job approved clothing every day”
Disney has very specific rules that affects only certain people. Jewelry: none visible on men, except a single wedding band. Earrings on women are ok, but they must be “stud” types and not dangling, and can be no bigger than a quarter. For men, they must have short hair, and only certain styles are permitted. No beards, only mustaches. For women, hair can be long but not overly long. No beards either
There are small exceptions in the code that allows for cultural or religious things, so I’m guessing this woman’s suing on behalf of that. Where I worked, hair cannot be in cornrows unless you were black and it is a part of your culture.
Nice find. 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.