Burka ban US style...

[Gob]

A Muslim woman is suing Disneyland, accusing the company's California theme park of discrimination for telling her she could not serve customers if she chose to wear a headscarf.

Imane Boudal, 26, asked her employers at Disneyland's Grand Californian Hotel several months ago whether they would permit her to wear a headcovering while working as a hostess, a spokeswoman for a worker's union said.

But when no reply was forthcoming, she decided to don the headscarf anyway, timing her decision with the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Leigh Shelton, a spokesman for the UNITE HERE Local 11 union said.

"Disney told Boudlal that if she wanted to work as a hostess she had to remove her hijab because it did not comply with the 'Disney Look,'" Shelton said in a statement.

"Disney further advised Boudlal that if she refused to remove her hijab, she could either work a back-of-the-house position where any customers would not see her, or else go home."

Boudlal refused the compromise and is now bringing Disney before the US Equal Opportunity Commission, a federal agency that handles claims of workplace discrimination.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

[Lord Jim]

I guess she could get a job at Hooters....

I don't think a head scarf would interfere much with "the look" there...

[dales]

What a load.

[loCAtek]

Yea, Disney definitely has a look. Most, if not all Theme parks (Disney or no) have an Employee Dress Code that they provide in writing, with specific outlines for nail length, hairstyles, type and amount of jewelry, etc. and especially in CA - NO HEADCOVERINGS!

People get shot over wearing the wrong headgear, so I see Disney's point.

[Big RR]

While I don't agree with disney (and IMHO their 'llok" is pretty silly), it's their place of business and I think this is fine so long as they similarly ban other religious realted garb not consistent with their "look" (like yarmulkes on jewish men or visible crosses/crucifixes on christians). Generally, I think an employer can pretty much tell it's employees what they must wear, with some exceptions, so long as the treatment is equal.

[dales]

Hogwash.

[Miles]

Any place I have worked had a dress code which I was required to read and sign. I expect Disney has the same policy. If you want to work you very rarely get to make your own rules.

[Big RR]

Hogwash.

Elaborate please.

Any place I have worked had a dress code which I was required to read and sign. I expect Disney has the same policy. If you want to work you very rarely get to make your own rules.

I've never had that happen to me, but basically i think that's pretty much the state of the law.

[dales]

Big RR...

Comparing the wearing of a necklace with a cross or a Star of David with a face-covering burkha is ridiculous.

The necklace can be hidden under a shirt or blouse, the face covering burkha cannot.

The skull cap is a different story and Disney could tell an emplyess that wears one to remove it.

Disney bent over backwards trying to accomadate this troublemaker by offering her emplyemnt out of public view. She refused and got a lawyer.

[Big RR]

OK Dales, I agree with regard to jewelry placed out of sight under one's shirt or blouse. Let's just say a visible piece of religious jewelry.

As for a discussion of Burkhas, I think this woman chose to wear a head scarf, usually just a scarf around the hair. Visible, yes, but not a face covering.

Again, I think Disney has the legal right to do what it wants, so long as it does not discriminate.

[Lord Jim]

As for a discussion of Burkhas, I think this woman chose to wear a head scarf, usually just a scarf around the hair. Visible, yes, but not a face covering.

I think that's a valid distinction...The title of the thread is a little misleading...

But that having been said, legally Disney has a perfect right have a dress code as a condition of employment.

[Joe Guy]

She can't wear a scarf and act as a hostess but it would be okay if she dressed up as a big mouse and walked around touching children.

Only in America...

[Big RR]

But that having been said, legally Disney has a perfect right have a dress code as a condition of employment.

So long as it's non discriminatory, I agree; federal and state laws prevent discrimination against employees on religious grounds. As i recall (but I'm not absolutely certain), federal law also mandates that employers must make reasonable accomodations for religious practices, dress, etc., so long as this does not cause a hardship. But i think the biggest evidence of discrimination would be an employer making such accomodations for employees of one religion, but not another.

[loCAtek]

The most visible form of religious garb in CA is the 'dastar' the Sikh turban; and I've not seen those worn at Disneyland. Which is quite a feat, the Sikhs are negotiating with the army to allow a modified turban that you can wear a helmet over. I've seen construction and sanitation workers who do that- a hat over hat. Sure looks hot!

[Lord Jim]

I've seen construction and sanitation workers who do that- a hat over hat. Sure looks hot!

Well, if that's what turns you on LoCa...

Doesn't do a thing for me...

[Gob]

She can't wear a scarf and act as a hostess but it would be okay if she dressed up as a big mouse and walked around touching children.

Only in America...

Now that gave me my "tea down the nose" moment for today

[Sean]

There is absolutely no reason to bring religion into this. Disney stopped her from wearing an item of clothing which does not fit with their dress code. It shouldn't matter if it was a burkha, scarf, motorcycle helmet, balaclava or Kermit the Frog mask. End of story.

[loCAtek]

Actually, Disney does own Kermit the Frog now... so, that would be OK.

[Big RR]

There is absolutely no reason to bring religion into this. Disney stopped her from wearing an item of clothing which does not fit with their dress code. It shouldn't matter if it was a burkha, scarf, motorcycle helmet, balaclava or Kermit the Frog mask. End of story.

You are correct that a business may enforce an dress code for its employees, but only so long as it is not done for a discriminatory (illegal) reason, I would agree with you. A business can legally do what it chooses with its employees (within reason), but it may not discriminate agains them on a religious (or racial or gender or even on whether the employee is handicapped for that matter) basis. That it is quasi-religious (in the sense that it is not required to be worn by the religion), thus, is possibly a factor in the analysis.

[Gob]

Which begs the question, why would someone want to work for an employer who can over ride their religious garb in the first place?