Muslim worker demands to wear head scarf with costume

[BobandXiaomei 14]

she never said she wasn't a cast member. she (and i as well) want to know how her scarf interferes from leading someone to an open booth and passing out menus to guests and crayons to their kids.

It's about dress code and nothing else. How does wearing shorts to work interfer with me doing my job? It doesn't; nor would it be a distraction to other workers (that also would like to wear shorts). But it's against dress code policy so we don't.

[KaiserD 12]

I was speaking in terms of concept, you don't have to take it literally.

I've never actually been so I'm going off general perceived company image here (and thus I hope someone corrects me if I'm wrong). But they a) hire women to fit a sexy part and b)have an umm...strict dress code.

Why do they get to hire people to a specific look and wearing clothes only they want and another business does not? It is still serving food, the principle of non discrimination should be the same shouldn't it?

[nab 74]

It's about dress code and nothing else. How does wearing shorts to work interfer with me doing my job? It doesn't; nor would it be a distraction to other workers (that also would like to wear shorts). But it's against dress code policy so we don't.

actually i may be incorrect but i dont think disney has "no hijab" in their dress code... if they are making her a modified costume that basically says they dont have that in their code book.

my issue with thongd4me was his comment:

"In order to perform her job effectively does she have to take it off? Yep."

he is saying her job cannot be performed effectively... i just wanted to know why he feels that way...?

[thongd4me 69]

she never said she wasn't a cast member. she (and i as well) want to know how her scarf interferes from leading someone to an open booth and passing out menus to guests and crayons to their kids.

She was a cast member for some time and she knew what was expected in terms of

dress for her role. She didn't show up for work the first time and demand this.

The scarf has nothing to do with interference; it has everything to do with not fitting

the role that she knew she was expected to portray, whether it was as a waitress

or an opera singer. It has less to do with imposing anything on her as an individual

rather than the need for all the waitresses & waiters in her particular restaurant

to have the same basic dress. If it was an issue of her need to have her head

covered, Disney openly offered to allow her to wear a hat that fit the style of the

approved dress and she found that unacceptable.

Disney also offered to give her an alternative job where she could wear the hijab.

She wanted to have her cake and eat it too.

Probably been talking to a lawyer who promised her pie-in-the-sky damages

[Fandango 1,439]

show me ANY practicing muslim woman who wants to work as a server at Hooters, THEN we will discuss your absurb scenario

You missed the point entirely...

[KaiserD 12]

The scarf has nothing to do with interference; it has everything to do with not fitting

the role that she knew she was expected to portray, whether it was as a waitress

or an opera singer.

Why would she no longer fit the role as a waitress? Or an opera singer?

[nab 74]

You missed the point entirely...

really... hmmmm

how's that research on "ramadan" going for you?

[thongd4me 69]

Klinger, an Arab (probably not Muslim, Lebanese) American portrayed by Jamie Farr

and famous in Mash, often wore women's clothing and was very fetching in a head scarf.

The idea behind this was that the Korean war was such a hell-hole that the army

would even tolerate his stepping this far out of uniform, they just needed his body

to be there and for him to do his job.

Naturally this TV show was a farce, so this type of thing passed which would have

never been allowed in the military.

Disney has it's own standards and is entitled to them. I think the Disney cast member

has been up nights watching re-runs of MASH.

[sandinista! 1,816]

It's about dress code and nothing else. How does wearing shorts to work interfer with me doing my job? It doesn't; nor would it be a distraction to other workers (that also would like to wear shorts). But it's against dress code policy so we don't.

if you can make a legitimate case that wearing shorts is a recognized aspect of your religious beliefs then you are free to attempt to argue that with your employer, and request they make reasonable accommodations for your religious beliefs. headscarves are recognized as being an aspect of many women's interpretation of their religion and therefore their employers have to make accommodations for them in this country. there is established precedent for it. the reasonable accommodation part comes after it's been established that the practice is a recognized, legitimate aspect of their religious beliefs. that's why the job interference part is relevant for imane boudlal, and not you and your shorts. even though they might be a lot more comfy in august than a business suit or whatever.

[thongd4me 69]

I did not 'skip over it'. I suggested that your notion that a play must be interpreted in a particular way was ridiculous - it still is. Suggesting that a Sikh turbaned man would only be acceptable within certain parameters when art is all about challenging perceptions is quite the most absurd thing I have ever read.

I get it now. You want Stanley Kowalski to wear a woman's hat and garter belt.

I did NOT say the play had to be interpreted in a particular way.

If the play was played as written, the actors would have to adhere to the types portrayed.

If the play was re-written for another cultural group, that would be great also and the interpretation would bring new life to the play.

The actors, however, would have to stay true to the play and their cultural group,

which would mean if they were Indian it would not be appropriate for Blanche Dubois to be Swedish

while all the other cast members are Indian.

[sandinista! 1,816]

You missed the point entirely...

hooters would probably be able to make a case for undue hardship in those circumstances. scantily clad young women are an established part of their business model, and it would be a burden to accommodate an employee in a headscarf showing zero skin.

the restaurant hostess is wearing her uniform. she wears the required shirt, pants and vest. the dress code is part of their business model. disneyland visitors expect disney employees to wear uniforms, be clean cut, etc., but i don't see how a case could be made that disneyland visitors can have a reasonable expectation to never see a disney employee working with the public wearing a scarf for the purpose of fulfilling what they believe is a religious obligation.

[Peikko 1,575]

I get it now. You want Stanley Kowalski to wear a woman's hat and garter belt.

I did NOT say the play had to be interpreted in a particular way.

If the play was played as written, the actors would have to adhere to the types portrayed.

If the play was re-written for another cultural group, that would be great also and the interpretation would bring new life to the play.

The actors, however, would have to stay true to the play and their cultural group,

which would mean if they were Indian it would not be appropriate for Blanche Dubois to be Swedish

while all the other cast members are Indian.

Appropriate? This is art, not grade school. Yes, the interpretation would have to hold together but whether or not it would is not down to whether or not characters cling to cultural stereotypes and norms.

[KaiserD 12]

really... hmmmm

how's that research on "ramadan" going for you?

Yes. At no point in that post did I even mention Muslims.

You can read it as: Hooters is not going to accommodate for Claire, of the "xyz" religion who's required to wear golden pantaloons as her faith requires it. If they are allowed to enforce this then why isn't Disney?

What laws exist that allow one workplace to use a hiring and dress protocol exempt from discrimination?

hooters would probably be able to make a case for undue hardship in those circumstances. scantily clad young women are an established part of their business model, and it would be a burden to accommodate an employee in a headscarf showing zero skin.

the restaurant hostess is wearing her uniform. she wears the required shirt, pants and vest. the dress code is part of their business model. disneyland visitors expect disney employees to wear uniforms, be clean cut, etc., but i don't see how a case could be made that disneyland visitors can have a reasonable expectation to never see a disney employee working with the public wearing a scarf for the purpose of fulfilling what they believe is a religious obligation.

I'm not sure how it gets allowed in the first place, I can't think of many businesses that get the rights to just hire people who fit a certain profile just because it's what they want to show. I'm not going to pretend I know diddly squat about employment laws though.

The whole possibility about her making the most out of the publicity I agree has merit if they attempted to make concessions for her (and if that's the case won't she lose the lawsuit anyway?)but that aside and just focusing on the issue unless they had a specific theme in the restaurant (I don't know like Lion King or something, I've never been there) then it is neither interfering with the job or the customers.

It reminds me of a woman who worked for BA who almost got dismissed because she refused to take off her small, obscure crucifix.

I wonder if it has less to do with discrimination and a whole deal more about micromanaging.

[Heracles 417]

Great example with hooters. Next they are going to work there and claim it's against their Muslim Beliefs. How about serving Alcohol or pork at a restaurant? particularly during Ramadan. There was one guy who sued Tesco in the UK, because he refused to carry alcohol.

Where does it stop really?

Edited August 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Danno 1,228]

The thing I find funny with most of those who would support this women's right to impose her faith..... on her Employer,

These are the same people who support the rights of "employers" in firing employees if they are found to be "smokers".... at HOME.