But the court will, presumably, take an interest in whether that is a true representation of the facts. (I’m not suggesting it isn’t.)
I gathered that. I was just pointing out that your statement was not universally applicable and giving an example of where a court would want to investigate someone’s sincerity. Obviously pretending to convert to the Sikh religion would be an outrageous example but it shows that a court cannot be blind to these matters.
Long thread, I’m on my lunch break, heavily medicated, etc. :smack:
Yes, it’s good law, but it also upheld the right of the Air Force to tell Simcha Goldman that he couldn’t wear a yarmulke in uniform. 
ETA: er… yeah, I see this is old news.
What legal right? Is it specified in the US constitution ?
That is not Disneys claim. They were willing to allow her to wear her religious clothing. She just did not want to wait for them to make one for her. I granted her having to wait two months and still not have the Disney approved one ready for her is ridiculus.
Since they failed to provide her the garment in an acceptable time for when she wanted to wear it I think they should have let her go ahead and wear her own in her normal work position.
I think she’s relying on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended.
Here’s how the Ninth Circuit describes the process:
From Opuku-Boateng v. California, 95 F. 3d 1461, 9th Circuit (1996)
I’ve read this whole thread fairly carefully, although I certainly might have missed something. Has it been established that Disney denied her right to wear the hijab on religious grounds? Is anyone other than her claiming that?
I’m pretty sure they didn’t but I think it’s been pretty well established that that’s not relevant.
I thought that’s what the whole Title Vll argument was about.
Yes, but the holding made it clear that the Air Force was allowed to tell Col. Goldman to take of his yarmulke because its policy was neutral (ie., barred any visible decoration of religious significance).
I happen to know that the Disney policy (or at least, its application) is not neutral.
We won’t get the whole story for a while, but it appears that Disney denied her the right to wear her own hijab and instead said she could wear a Disney “uniform” hijab that they would provide. She agreed to this, and filed suit when Disney failed to provide her with one.
I haven’t seen much about the point that the point that this person was allowed to work a different job where the head scarf was not considered a problem. Is there some kind of law that says people are entitled to the particular job that they want?
People are entitled to the particular job they have been hired to do, typically, unless the employer can show a legitimate reason why they can’t do it anymore.
For example, in the case of Disney, there are stringent height requirements for costumed characters. This serves two purposes:
In the case of “face” characters (the ones who don’t wear big furry suits; typically, the ones playing human characters), it ensures they all look more or less the same, which means the sets, equipment, and costumes can be largely standardized.
In the case of “fur” characters, the big expensive suits can be standardized. Also, many of the fur character suits are gigantic, and putting people smaller than, say, 4’10" in one means Mickey becomes less of a cute waving mouse and more of a Godzilla opponent with big ears.
But did they deny it on religious grounds? Many posters seem to be making that assumption and I’m just wondering what the basis for that is.
So Disney “…initiated good faith efforts to accommodate reasonably the employee’s religious practices?” (EEOC v. Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 615 (9th Cir. 1988))
And in the interim, offered her a place to work out of view of customers?
From EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1006, Dist. Ct, Dist. of Arizona (2006). This seems to suggest that Disney’s proposed interim solution, which did not require the removal of the scarf, would be considered reasonable.
Well, it does appear that Disney’s proposed interim solution was reasonable, but if its proposed long-term solution was “a hat”, I’m not sure that would qualify as a good faith effort at reasonable accomodation.
I suspect she’ll also have a case under the California constitution, if she chooses to pursue it.
It doesn’t matter whether their grounds for denying it are religious. They have a positive obligation to make reasonable accommodation of religious practices.
The real issue is the one Bricker points out – does what Disney did qualify as reasonable accommodation?
I see. Thanks.
I refer my learned friend to the answers given moments ago:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12820031&postcount=62
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12821357&postcount=76