Muslim sues over head scarf

[Tom Morrow]

ATTENTION! READ COMPLETELY BEFORE POSTING
This thread is open for posting, but all posts are to remain completely on-topic. You may discuss the details of the lawsuit itself. There should be absolutely no name-calling, and no side-remarks about religion or politics in general. If any post is reported as offensive for any reason, that post will be deleted in its entirety and the thread closed permanently. Please read thoroughly, and reply thoughtfully. I hope that Visions Fantastic members can express themselves, but still be polite and respectful. ~Ezra

—

Muslim sues Disneyland Resort for discrimination over head scarf

Muslim employee's suit accuses Disney of bias over head scarf Imane Boudlal charges that she was harassed after she began wearing a hijab in 2010 while working as a cafe hostess Los Angeles Times Imane Boudlal Boudlal is suing Walt Disney Corp. in federal court, saying that she was discriminated against and harassed for her religious beliefs. She also alleges that she unfairly lost her job in 2010 after refusing to remove her head scarf at work. Boudlal alleges that her co-workers began taunting her, calling the Moroccan-born Muslim a "terrorist," a "camel" and someone who learned how to make bombs at her mosque. She complained to her managers verbally and in writing, she said, with no results, according to a lawsuit filed Monday. The lawsuit charges that Boudlal, who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, decided to wear her hijab full time in 2010, about eight months after she began wearing it publicly. She contacted her supervisors at Disneyland to request an exemption to the company's general appearance guidelines. Boudlal received initial approval to wear a Disney-designed scarf, but she was told it would need corporate approval before she could wear it to work. Not wanting to wait to mark Ramadan, Boudlal wore her own hijab to work Aug. 15, 2010, when she says she was told she could either remove the scarf, cover it with a hat or work in a job out of public sight. She refused and, after a few additional meetings with Disney, filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agency awarded Boudlal a notice of right to sue earlier this month, opening the door for litigation. Disney spokeswoman Suzi Brown said the company tried to accommodate Boudlal's needs — as it has with religious requests from other employees from 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." by Kate Mather complete article

—

Related Articles:

Disney sued by Muslim ex-employee for alleged discrimination
Hollywood Reporter

Ex-Disney employee files discrimination lawsuit
Orange County Register

Submitted by Ezra

[Ezra]

Since the previous threads have been closed, here is a collection of the previous stories on this topic.

The original story from 2010:
Muslim employee accuses Disney of discrimination
Orange County Register

Also from 2010, Imane Boudlal rejected Disney-designed head scarves:
Muslim employee rejects Disney’s hat alternative
Orange County Register

—
Another employee accepts Disney approved head scarf in 2010:
Disney OKs Muslim intern to wear scarf
Orange County Retister

—
A current costume worn by a Walt Disney World employee:
Religious "Costume" at the Magic Kingdom
Ultimate Orlando

—

[lpetiti]

I think the scarves that have been listed above are an excellent idea and I'm not really sure why she seems to be having such an issue with this. I'm not saying that she should give up her right to express her religious beliefs, but I feel like Disney wasn't telling her to change her job to a permanently behind-the-scenes position. If I understand the article, all they wanted her to do was wait until a Disney-approved scarf; they weren't telling her she couldn't wear it.

While she does have some valid concerns (like the potential discrimination by co-workers), I also feel like this isn't a complete case of her sticking to her religious beliefs (although I commend her for doing that). I feel like this is partially a case of trying to get more money out of Disney.

[DisneyMommy403]

I'm with Disney on this one, with the exception of not acknowledging her letters regarding her harassment from co workers. That should have been addressed immediately. However, she either could have waited for approval... or taken the option of working out of sight. I understand her frustration though, I'm sure I would feel the same. But, given that Disney was willing to make a compromise, it doesn't reflect on her highly that she chose to be defiant. Given that the situation would come with high emotions, I can see why she would have the initial reaction. But to push litigation and claim discrimination? I'm not sure if she has much of a case.

[Mouseketeer1955]

One thing not mentioned is the fact that wearing a hijab is not a religious imperitive. In other words, it is an option now and it was an option then.

Now couple this with Disney's attempt to accommodate her, I don't think she has an argument.

This is simply an attempt to deep pocket Disney. When Disney wins, they should demand that she pay their attorney's fees.

[lpetiti]

Wouldn't Disney just settle? I'm not sure about this, but I very rarely have seen these things get beyond a settlement.

[Ezra]

Disney may actually want a Federal judgment. Disney believes that it's within their right as an employer to apply their dress code to the wearing of a hijab. That even if they cannot forbid it, they can still require that it comply with their dress code. I think it would be in Disney's best interests for the federal court to state that plainly, and it's probably worth the court costs to be able to set that precedent. That would cement their position into federal guidelines.

[bodhran105]

That even if they cannot forbid it, they can still require that it comply with their dress code.

...it's probably worth the court costs to be able to set that precedent. That would cement their position into federal guidelines.

Maybe it's just me, so I'm gonna pop my head in on this discussion and give my opinion. Now, I hope I'm not the only one, but I'm not one for companies required very strict dress codes. Sure, Disney may need it as they are a publicly view-able entertainment company. The parks are open to (nearly) anyone willing to pay the price. Yet, for companies where someone is locked up in an office building, behind a cubicle; or for one running around a warehouse, why must I be required to wear neat slacks and a pressed button down long sleeve shirt at minimum? I'm running around a warehouse picking up 250lbs crates and getting covered in oil and grease day to day! What dress code is needed? Nobody sees me. I never see clients. Why am I required a dress code so strict? Sure, no exposing of certain parts and such, but why can a company that has no reason, but because they can, force me to wear clothing that limits my work?

I understand Disney's need for the case, that CM will be in the sight of "clients." BUT! I don't want a federal ruling that companies have the ability to make anyone comply with whatever demand they make. Now Disney at least is giving an option to wear a head piece, just one that can comply with their standards.

Just why in the work I'm doing do I have to follow a dress code that makes no sense? Don't say I should take it up with my employer, it's been done by other employees and we've gotten no answer, because there is no answer. They do it because they can. Sure, I'll wear long pants and a button shirt- I'll comply. But why not neat cargo khakis and a polo or short sleeve button down? I'll comply with some standards but I don't want you to take your power all the way.

That's the federal mandate I'd like to see. Compliance, but no obscene amount of power for the company.

[Cavemandon]

...I'm not one for companies required very strict dress codes.

If I'm the owner/operator of a company and I want the image of that company to have a look and feel of professionalism both in front of the public and behind, I have a right to do so. If a prospective employee wants to and applies for a job, then they agree to conform to those standards. If that person doesn't feel they should be required to, then they don't have to apply for a job. That does not mean that the company is trying to remove the personality of the employees, but that they look and conduct themselves in a professional manner. McDonald's employees have a dress code. Both in front of the customers and behind the scenes.

[Executioner]

I don't think Disney is in the wrong about their dress code. Especially when they tried working with her to accommodate it. I am sure her management team could have handled the harassment allegations with more professionalism, but maybe that is what Disney should be sued over instead of not allowing someone to wear an article of clothing. Disney has an image they want to keep and it is in their right to do so as long as they are following the law.

[FantasmicFan89]

Oh boy, this again... Well, like many others have stated, Disney has its particular dress code and guidelines and any potential employees are made aware of said guidelines. I recently took a government/law class where I had a midterm with a similar scenario like this one. According to the SBA (Small Business Administration):

As a condition of employment, employers have the right to establish and enforce a dress code policy. Because federal and state laws generally don't govern these policies, employers have a lot of flexibility in creating an appropriate dress code for their environment. As workplace dress codes have relaxed over the past few decades, businesses have become more lenient on what attire is allowed. Typical dress code policies include a company philosophy, a list of appropriate business attire for both men and women, when business attire is required, what's considered prohibited attire, how the policy will be enforced, and any additional stipulations.

Dress code policies must treat all employees of the same type equally. Anti-discrimination laws affect employment issues such as a dress code policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces laws that prohibit employers from all kinds of discrimination against their employees. The EEOC upholds laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination and ensures that employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees that request it based on personal issues such as religion, race, and gender.

The Civil Rights Act protects the religious and cultural displays of individuals from institutions preventing displays or discrimination. Had Disney outright told her she may not wear any type of head scarf then I believe they would have some trouble. However, not only did they attempt to a re-purpose her employment to another temporary title, but they also offered to design a head scarf that would comply with her religious beliefs as well as their dress code. Based on the laws and the evidence I believe Disney will walk away with a ruling in their favor. Hopefully, no matter what the outcome of the case is, it will be a reference point for future cases to avoid further disputes such as this.

[CA Screamin Dude]

The employer may deem a proposed redesign of the costume an attempted accomodation; however, such an accomodation may itself still be seen as discriminatory and/or unreasonable by the employee. If the employee believes the employer's attempt at accomodation is unreasonable, the employee may file a complaint with EEOC, who may in turn award a notice of right to sue. Harassment related to the protected class is also classified as a form of discrimination.

Disney's modification of its clean shaven policy, for instance, followed several lawsuits against the Company alleging both racial and religious discrimination. A previous decision regarding a facial hair lawsuit found that exemptions to the grooming policy did not constitute an undue hardship for the company; a 1991 decision against Domino's found the policy was discriminatory based on the tenet of disparate impact.

So the question becomes whether (1) an exemption to the costume policy under the pretense of reasonable accomodation may be seen as an undue hardship and (2) Disney's proposed costume design is itself discriminatory, possibly based on harassment.

(1)
We know that legal precedent has determined facial hair policies and an exemption to such policies do not necessarily impose an undue hardship; it is unlikely the authorization of a hijab would be considered an undue hardship for Disney, as evidenced by Disney's willingness to design a costume to surround the article of religious clothing. Therefore, Disney by virtue of its actions with this and another employee in a similar situation, has demonstrated that this argument is no longer pertinent as a defense.

(2)
This is the crux of the lawsuit. Does forcing an employee to cover religious attire with Company-approved fabric—while still authorizing the employee to wear religious garb, which for all intents and purposes may be classified as " employer-mandated innerwear"—constitute a policy of harassment or one that may contribute to a hostile work environment? In other words, assuming that a religion might mandate that religious garb must always be worn as "outerwear," would Disney's attempted accomodation at requiring the religious garb be covered with Company-approved material be discriminatory? If so, does Disney's attempted accomodation by allowing the employee to provide her own religious outerwear with the stipulation that such outerwear must be Company-approved constitute a discriminatory policy? Does such a requirement that this religious garb undergo a "show-ready check" constitute harassment and is therefore discriminatory? If not, is Disney liable to provide an employee with the means by which to acquire such "approved" religious garb (e.g., money for the garb)?

These questions are certainly subject to interpretation and associated responses likely vary depending on one's personal views. Yet legally, there is much documentation, case and statutory law to consider; for this reason, such a lawsuit could become fairly lengthy, as the preliminary stage has already proven.

[Wedbliss]

If Disney's design for alternative head wear is itself discriminatory then I have to admit that I no longer understand how society operates. I am a dinosaur who no longer has any role to play in public affairs and I yield to wiser and cooler heads than mine.

[Ezra]

Boudlal said that the reason she rejected a costume alternative was that it "makes a joke of me and my religion". I wasn't there, so I wouldn't know, but I highly doubt that was the intention. She also said they "don't want me to look Muslim." On that point she may be right: The wanted her to look like somone who might work at an upscale craftsman lodge in the 1930s. Well, not quite that, since women have the option of wearing slacks; but at least that's the inspiration for the costume. So they designed her a 30s style bonnet. The quesion will be, is that a reasonable accomodation or not? If it isn't, and they must allow her to wear her own hijab, then can they at least require that it be a certain color, to go with the costume? Or does she have carte blanche to wear anything she chooses? Where do her rights end and Disney's rights begin? Where will they draw the line? I'd be interested to know.

Most women I've seen wearing hijabs chose neutral colors: black, white, grey, beige. But I have seen leopard print, hot pink, gold lamé. (I know that doesn't sound very "modest", but I have seen it.) If the courts decided that somone could wear anything they chose, that could mean serious trouble for the Disney Look.

[Wedbliss]

The above article says:

It was also, Boudlal alleges in a lawsuit filed Monday, when her co-workers began taunting her, calling the Moroccan-born Muslim a "terrorist," a "camel" and someone who learned how to make bombs at her mosque. She complained to her managers verbally and in writing, she said, with no results.

It seems to me that this is the larger issue. If I had been treated this way due to my beliefs and/or appearance and management ignored the problem (which is only alleged at this point) I might consider filing a lawsuit.

It's my opinion that a show business entity can costume it's performers in any way they see fit. But, then again, I'm just some guy without a legal education.

But even the unschooled can understand that verbal abuse in the workplace is unacceptable. Certainly such a thing could be enough to make a person angry enough to take legal action.

It's my opinion that religious beliefs/duties are abridged all the time in workplaces and practically everywhere else. If a Christian is faithful to the Great Commission, then he or she would be preaching the gospel at work on a regular basis. No doubt this would be frowned on by employers and co-workers who don't want to hear it. But if a religion commands it, then isn't it a right to carry out that command? As Maude once said to Harold, consistency isn't really a human trait.

But if verbal abuse really happened as alleged, then someone needs to answer for it, if they have not already. I have no patience at all with someone being labeled a terrorist based solely on their appearance or nationality.

What a mess. I'm glad I'm not a judge. I have no idea whatsoever how to insure everyone's rights in the labyrinth of law without one decision somehow contradicting another. How do lawyers and judges keep it all straight?