So once given a job, you can’t be transferred to another department to suit the needs of the company? Please provide a cite.
Well, if yesterday and/or 14 hours was moments ago, I suppose. But I already got a polite response from ascenray, so you needn’t have bothered.
If the only “needs of the company” that are at stake are the ones preventing you from practicing your religion, and not fundamental requirements of the job, then that’s religious discrimination.
I’m not referring to transfers in general. However, in many cases, no you cannot be transferred to another department to suit the needs of the company, unless you are doing a similar type of work. Depends on the jurisdiction.
They are of course free to eliminate your position.
Are there any restrictions on what constitutes practicing a religion? The obvious chicken sacrifices and such spring to mind.
Calm down… it’s just a figure of speech.
SCOTUS has tossed out several definitions of religion for different purposes (tax avoidance, conscientious objector status, free exercise/expression, etc.)
Honestly, I have no idea what the specific test is in Title VII cases.
Well, let’s grant that the religion itself is not in dispute. Surely there are some practices of a particular religion that would not be covered. Snake handling? Preaching? Singing hymns?
Yes, it is. And it’s also one that doesn’t apply.
Of course there are. That’s why Mormons can no longer practice polygamy, and native Americans can’t smoke peyote (at least, not under Federal law).
Yes, but there’s nothing in any record I’m aware of contending that Disney’s solution would have been a hat. Is there?
I don’t know much about California law. What is the relevant law on accomodation?
Well this seems irrational to me. But the law is not the epitome of reason either. If you have some cites, I’d like to see them. I don’t see how a reasonable person would see that the employee in this case suffered any harm if she was offered an equivalent job at the same pay.
Because hiding staff in the back room is not an equivalent job. This is the gravamen of the complaints against retailers like Abercrombie and Fitch and the allegations that they consign their employees of color to the stock room.
In the first place, the jobs are different, even if the initial pay is minimum wage for both. Working the floor tends to be more likely to lead to advancement, involves more customer contact, etc. etc.
But also part of the social ill the law is meant to address is the sentiment that minority employees (be they members of a traditionally represented race, sex, or religion) need or should be kept out of public view or that customers should be protected from the affront of dealing with them, perhaps even while wearing non-traditional apparel. So quite apart from the functional or remunerative equivalences that may obtain between the positions, separate is still unequal. Thus, to “accommodate” hijab-wearing employees by keeping them hidden away is no accommodation at all.
I agree with this as a general principle.
But in this case, Disney’s proposal was an interim solution while they (presumably) worked out the custom scarf that meshed with their costume. I agree they can’t hold out forever, but I’m not sure that a mere two months wait is enough to show that the promised custom scarf was not to be forthcoming.
Now, that said, do you happen to have any case law that supports the proposition that assignment to non-customer contact roles, offered as a permanant accomodation, is insufficient? I ask because the language from the Alamo car case seems to key not on the back room, but on the scarf removal required.
I would agree that would be correct in some cases. But there are positions other than hostess that are equivalent. I’m trying to see if there is some specific right to the job you were hired for.
This incident is still very much in the “he-said, she-said” phase, which is compounded by “this article says X, while that article says Y”.
From a CBS article:
From an L. A. Times article:
-the two different articles vary slightly, and there’s no mention of a hat in the first
-according to the first, the timeline is roughly like:
[ul]
[li]2 1/2 years with no head-scarf[/li][li]Boudlal learns she is allowed to wear one and makes a request to her supervisors []supervisors say they will consult head office and nothing happens for 2 months []after 2 months she was fitted for an “official” head-scarf, but not told when it would be ready[/li][li]Ramadan approaches so she shows up in her own head-scarf [/li][li]Disney offers her the choice of working back-stage until presumably the official head-scarf is ready[/li][/ul]
-according to the second:
[ul]
[li]2 1/2 years with no head-scarf[/li][li]Boudlal makes a request to her supervisors[/li][li]some unspecified time later she resubmits the request and is told it was still under review[/li][li]one week prior to incident she was taken to the costume department to look for “alternatives” including a hat, but told she cannot wear her own head-scarf[/li][li]Ramadan approaches so she shows up in her own head-scarf [/li][/ul]
In my opinion, the two articles also differ somewhat in tenor, with the CBS article taking a slightly more neutral stance, and the L. A. Times being slightly pro-Boudlal.
Doesn’t Disney have Muslim characters anyway? Like in Aladdin? She could be one of those.
I assume you mean 2 1/2 months. Maybe the mods can correct it. Both cases are about the same, and don’t sound like religious discrimination or disparate impact. I noted way back in the thread that this was a tempest in a teapot. It sounds much more like a right wing fantasy outrage about a Muslim suing the good people of the US than a liberal fantasy about an oppressed minority being denied constitutional rights. I hope someone follows up on this if a court decision is ever reached.
Aladdin was Chinese, and set in China. So that would be unfair to Muslim Chinese people who have such few roles available to them.:rolleyes:
Yeah, a fictional predominantly Muslim China. Fictional, you know, like Disney characters ?
He wasn’t exactly a Uyghur you know. :rolleyes: