Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

    Originally posted by calsig31 View Post
    There could be a number of things from settlement negotiations to her attorneys just trying to get their ducks in a row. A high profile case like this is not something to rush into.
    Exactly correct.

    Comment


    • #22
      Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

      Originally posted by Disneytwins View Post
      She's just being money-hungry. The goal here is to get so much bad publicity on Disney, that they settle.
      In fact, there is no possible way you can know that.

      What is known for certain is that in all MiceChat threads that discuss lawsuits against Disney, the great majority of posts automatically assume -- without any knowledge of the specifics of the cases -- that the plaintiffs' motive is money, that Disney is innocent, that the lawsuits are frivolous, and that Disney is the victim.
      "Disneyland is often called a magic kingdom because
      it combines fantasy and history, adventure and learning,
      together with every variety of recreation and fun,
      designed to appeal to everyone."

      - Walt Disney

      "Disneyland is all about turning movies into rides."
      - Michael Eisner

      "It's very symbiotic."
      - Bob Chapek

      Comment


      • #23
        Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

        The LA Times has an additional article: Disney says Muslim woman had options in head scarf dispute - latimes.com

        Disney spokeswoman Suzi Brown said the company tried to accommodate Boudlal’s needs — as it has with religious requests from other employees of various faiths.
        “We presented Ms. Boudlal with multiple options to accommodate her religious beliefs, as well as offered her several roles that would have allowed her to wear her own hijab,” Brown said. “Unfortunately, she rejected all of our efforts and has since refused to come to work.”

        Comment


        • #24
          Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

          ^like I said they offered her more then one different job duties.....I just don't want her to win this because she has no right

          The company was nice enough to hire her...try to make it work...then she quits and sues? Disney is not the bad guy here she is
          Happy Halloween!!!

          Comment


          • #25
            Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

            I am not sure offering her a back of house position is considered a reasonable alternative, I am no lawyer but as I read the federal law, an employer can't reassign an employee to a non-public contact position soley because of religious clothing.

            I guess it will come down to see if the alternative clothing Disney did offer is considered acceptable under the law.

            If they dont settle, I would be curious to see how the lawyers fight this one out.

            Comment


            • #26
              Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

              I'm trying not to prejudge, but realistically, my cousin was a CM and wanted to work on attractions and they offered her custodial or parking. She didn't sue because she didn't get the position she wanted. She just took one of the two that was offered to her.

              Comment


              • #27
                Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                Yes, this is the same woman from the 2010 stories (and threads here). The reason it took so long is that she cannot file suit in U.S. District Court until the EEOC issues a "right to sue" letter. That letter was just issued, and she is now free to file suit in court.

                She stands a good chance of prevailing, and not just because her lawyer is one of the best legal minds in the country. Disney is just like every other employer. It has a duty to make reasonable accommodations to employees who observe religious dress or grooming requirements. Under both federal (Title VII) and state law (FEHA), the prohibition against religious discrimination includes protection against adverse treatment and imposes on the employer a duty of reasonable accommodation for employees' religious beliefs that are associated with traditional religions, as well as religious observances and practices. There is little question this employee is entitled to wear a head scarf. The question is whether Disney's proposed accommodations were sufficient and were timely.

                Here's the basic rundown on the law. The EEOC has issued a manual providing detailed guidance on investigating and analyzing claims of workplace discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on religion. [EEOC Compliance Manual, No. 915.003, July 23, 2008] That manual includes an example that would tend to support this employee's claim.

                http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.pdf

                There is a two-part analysis:

                First, the employee must show eligibility, her "prima facie" case for religious discrimination on the ground that she was unable to fulfill a job requirement due to her religious beliefs or observances (classic examples including refusing to work on the Sabbath and not shaving beards).

                To establish a Title VII violation, the applicant or employee must show: (i) the employee (or applicant) held a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty; (ii) the employee (or applicant) informed the employer of his or her religious belief and a conflict with particular job duties; and (iii) the employer took adverse action (e.g., refusal to hire or discharge) because of the applicant's or employee's inability to fulfill the job requirement. Some cases also require proof other employees were treated more favorably “or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to an inference of discrimination.”

                I think the employee has already shown that.

                If the employee proves a prima facie case, the employer has the burden to show that either: (i) it attempted reasonably to accommodate the employee's religious belief; or (ii) any accommodation of the employee's needs would result in undue hardship.

                This is what the court case will be all about.

                To discharge the duty to reasonably accommodate, the employer must show that it took the initial steps toward accommodation and negotiated with the employee in an attempt to reasonably accommodate the employee's religious beliefs: “Only if the employer can show that no accommodation would be possible without undue hardship is it excused from taking the necessary steps to accommodate the employee's religious beliefs." Reasonable accommodation need not eliminate all possible conflicts between employment requirements and the employee's religion. A reasonable jury may find in many circumstances that the employee must either compromise a religious observance or practice, or accept a less desirable job or less favorable working conditions.

                Reasonable accommodations can include (i) keeping the employee in his or her current position but changing the working conditions, or (ii) letting the employee transfer to another reasonably comparable position where conflicts are less likely to arise. The employer is not required to accept the alternative favored by the employee, but there are limitations.

                The duty to accommodate religious beliefs and observances does not require the employer to (i) take steps inconsistent with an otherwise valid collective bargaining agreement, (ii) “bear more than a de minimis cost” in order to accommodate a religious belief or observance, or (iii) impose an undesirable shift preference on other employees.

                Undue hardship also excuses the duty to accommodate. Undue hardship on the employer exists where accommodating the practice involves hardship on the conduct of the business and would result in more than a de minimis cost. Undue hardship may also exist where accommodating the religious practice causes hardship to the rights of other employees and would result in a significant, discriminatory impact on those rights.

                Courts consider various factors, including:
                —the nature and cost of accommodation required;
                —the facility's overall financial resources, the number of persons employed there, and the impact on operation of the facility;
                —the employer's overall financial resources and size of business;
                —the type of operations; and
                —geographic separateness, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility involved.

                The burden of proving undue hardship is on the employer, but it is by no means impossible. In one case, Costco Wholesale Corp. proved an undue hardship to accommodate a cashier's wearing eyebrow-piercing jewelry, as required by her religion, because it affected the employer's “neat and clean” public image.

                In a similar case involving a restaurant worker with visible religious tattoos, in EEOC v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., 2005 WL 2090677 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2005), the court ruled that notwithstanding the employer’s purported reliance on a company profile and customer study suggesting that it seeks to present a family-oriented and kid-friendly image, the company failed to demonstrate that allowing an employee to have visible religious tattoos was inconsistent with these goals. “Hypothetical hardships based on unproven assumptions typically fail to constitute undue hardship . . . . Red Robin must provide evidence of ‘actual imposition on co-workers or disruption of the work routine’ to demonstrate undue hardship.”

                Disney has been sued twice for similar violations. Aicha Baha v. Disney World Co. (filed in 2004) concerned a Muslim woman who wears a hijab and Channa v. Disney World Co. (filed in 2008) concerned a Sikh musician who wears a turban. Disney settled both cases to avoid trial.
                Last edited by steamboatpete; 08-14-2012, 07:00 AM.
                Fight On!:sc: Beat the Red Wolves!

                Tom Chaney Memorial Debate Lounge Quote of the Week:

                [None]
                The brick walls are there to stop the people who don't want it badly enough - Randy Pausch

                Comment


                • #28
                  Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                  In this particular case I don't think Disney will have a problem demonstrating that they did in fact try to make reasonable accommodation for the woman, what with offering her several different positions and head coverings, and that she refused all of them.

                  I think they'll also have little trouble showing that it would have caused undue hardship to allow her to wear hijab on the dining room shift. Disney is very clear that their jobs are roles and are meant to evoke certain themes, and that they expect cast members to adhere to certain looks. It's the same way a director for a film casts actors who look a certain way and expects them to wear the costumes provided by wardrobe.

                  If one's religious beliefs--be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim or anything else--interfere with one's abilities to carry out one's assigned job, one has to make a choice sometimes. It's not fair to ask an employer to change the nature of their business to accommodate someone's personal religious preference.
                  Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                    Originally posted by traumwelt View Post
                    Employee expression of religion is has no place in Disneyland. If you don't like it, don't work there. Period. I hope she loses.
                    Not an American, are ya?

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                      Originally posted by Malina View Post
                      In this particular case I don't think Disney will have a problem demonstrating that they did in fact try to make reasonable accommodation for the woman, what with offering her several different positions and head coverings, and that she refused all of them.
                      They will have some trouble with this. The only accommodation they offered quickly was "go work in the back," which is not a reasonable accommodation. The other accommodations, which I thought were fairly reasonable, weren't offered until after she filed the EEOC charges.

                      Originally posted by Malina View Post
                      I think they'll also have little trouble showing that it would have caused undue hardship to allow her to wear hijab on the dining room shift. Disney is very clear that their jobs are roles and are meant to evoke certain themes, and that they expect cast members to adhere to certain looks. It's the same way a director for a film casts actors who look a certain way and expects them to wear the costumes provided by wardrobe.
                      That they will have a lot of trouble showing. It's not like she was playing the Queen of Hearts in a parade. She was a hostess at a restaurant at a hotel. Worse, Disney has already proven that it can fashion hijabs that are consistent with their theming for that restaurant.
                      Fight On!:sc: Beat the Red Wolves!

                      Tom Chaney Memorial Debate Lounge Quote of the Week:

                      [None]
                      The brick walls are there to stop the people who don't want it badly enough - Randy Pausch

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                        Originally posted by Malina View Post
                        In this particular case I don't think Disney will have a problem demonstrating that they did in fact try to make reasonable accommodation for the woman, what with offering her several different positions and head coverings, and that she refused all of them.
                        The problem is that we don't know what the head dresses looked like that they gave her. They may not be reasonable to someone of that religion. A Dodger cap and a yarmulke will both cover one's head but they serve two different purposes.

                        Originally posted by Malina View Post
                        II think they'll also have little trouble showing that it would have caused undue hardship to allow her to wear hijab on the dining room shift. Disney is very clear that their jobs are roles and are meant to evoke certain themes, and that they expect cast members to adhere to certain looks. It's the same way a director for a film casts actors who look a certain way and expects them to wear the costumes provided by wardrobe.
                        You may be surprised on this one. She had a job in a restaurant. If she was a face character, she would have a tougher time winning her arguement. For a simple restaurant employee, Disney may not be able to show that it would be a big deal to allow the head covering.

                        Originally posted by Malina View Post
                        IIf one's religious beliefs--be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim or anything else--interfere with one's abilities to carry out one's assigned job, one has to make a choice sometimes. It's not fair to ask an employer to change the nature of their business to accommodate someone's personal religious preference.
                        This is very true, and there are cases and cases on the subject.
                        "Greetings, Starfighter! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada."

                        Comment


                        • #32
                          Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                          Originally posted by steamboatpete View Post
                          That they will have a lot of trouble showing. It's not like she was playing the Queen of Hearts in a parade. She was a hostess at a restaurant at a hotel. Worse, Disney has already proven that it can fashion hijabs that are consistent with their theming for that restaurant.
                          It doesn't matter. Adhering to uniform standards is an accepted condition of employment. She agreed to abide by those standards when she was hired. If she chose not to follow them, they had every right to terminate her, whether the deviation was wearing her own headscarf or dyeing her hair purple.

                          The fact that Disney fashioned their own hijab for her works in their favor--they're showing that they are not discriminating against hijab per se, and that they tried to fashion something that would work within the theme of the restaurant. They have the right to insist on their employees' uniform standards.

                          It's in another country so it has no bearing on the US court case, but there's precedent for this elsewhere--McDonald's in, I believe, Sweden or Norway. They had employees who wanted to wear hijab, and McDonald's agreed to allow it as long as they wore the headscarves that McD's designed.
                          Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                            Originally posted by Malina View Post
                            The fact that Disney fashioned their own hijab for her works in their favor
                            Not necessarily since we don't know what Disney's looked like. They may have provided an alternative, but not necessarily a reasonable​ alternative.
                            "Greetings, Starfighter! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada."

                            Comment


                            • #34
                              Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                              Originally posted by Malina View Post
                              It doesn't matter. Adhering to uniform standards is an accepted condition of employment. She agreed to abide by those standards when she was hired. If she chose not to follow them, they had every right to terminate her, whether the deviation was wearing her own headscarf or dyeing her hair purple.
                              Although my understanding, based on the articles I have read, is that they did not terminate her for dress violation. They terminated her for job abandonment after she refused to return to work.

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                                Originally posted by ShelbyH View Post
                                Although my understanding, based on the articles I have read, is that they did not terminate her for dress violation. They terminated her for job abandonment after she refused to return to work.
                                One of the articles I read said that; in another she claims that they didn't give her hours and eventually termed her. Either way--if she abandoned the job, it should be justifiable cause for termination, too.
                                Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

                                Comment


                                • #36
                                  Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                                  Originally posted by Malina View Post
                                  One of the articles I read said that; in another she claims that they didn't give her hours and eventually termed her. Either way--if she abandoned the job, it should be justifiable cause for termination, too.
                                  Not always the case either. It depends if not showing up to work is a reasonable action in tar situation and what kind of causal connection can be found between her not showing up to work and Disney not accommodating her.
                                  Last edited by calsig31; 08-14-2012, 08:00 AM.
                                  "Greetings, Starfighter! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada."

                                  Comment


                                  • #37
                                    Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                                    I think it really is going to come down to "reasonable accommodation," as what I would consider reasonable clearly conflicts with what other people consider reasonable. Disney does have a history of accommodating religious practices. If this were some kind of class-action lawsuit, I think it might be a bit different, but it's not. I've never seen anyone walking around with a yarmulke even though there are likely devout Jewish men who practice that tradition working there.

                                    My other question would be, is this being litigated in Orange County? If so, there's a bit of an uphill climb for the plaintiff.

                                    Comment


                                    • #38
                                      Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                                      Another point that I think works for Disney is that you are not hired into a specific role. You are hired into and classified as a general role. From there, you get specific training at various locations and roles. If Ms. Boudlal was already trained in a BOH position for her job, that to me would not be a forced job change. Heck, even if moving her to a BOH position required cross training, they still would not be changing what she was hired to do.

                                      Comment


                                      • #39
                                        Re: Former Disneyland Worker sues Disney

                                        Originally posted by calsig31 View Post
                                        Not necessarily since we don't know what Disney's looked like. They may have provided an alternative, but not necessarily a reasonable​ alternative.
                                        There are already Muslim headscarves Onstage, designed and provided by Disney's costuming department, being worn by female Muslim Cast Members. I have seen them in Parking and Main Entrance, and I know of one lady in Costuming who wears an approved headscarve to work although she doesn't wear a "costume" and isn't Onstage.

                                        She isn't the only Muslim woman to work at Disneyland; there are others working there now who wear the Disney provided headscarve with their costume every day.

                                        This Miss Boudlal is just the only one to reject the multiple different headscarves and job positions that Disney offered her, and then she stopped showing up for her scheduled shifts. And then two years later she sues them and holds another press conference.

                                        That about sums it up.

                                        Comment


                                        • #40

                                          Comment

                                          Get Away Today Footer

                                          Collapse
                                          Working...
                                          X