Muslim worker demands to wear head scarf with costume

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Its Disney right? Okay, I have her uniform.

Can I have some money please?

[evli1966 88]

not according to the equal opportunity employment commission. and an employer as large as disney should be familiar with eoec standards.

Actually your taking this out of context. If they were to enact these policies to discrimante against her or otthers specifically then yes this would apply.

The Uniform codes and rules they follow are enforced consistently through out before her so a precedence has been established that these rules were not set to discriminate against anyone.

Paul is also correct employers are required to inform you of any dress code requirements when hiring and require you to agree to them before you are hired.

Good luck any law suit.

People like her really give Muslims a bad name.....

I wouldn't say that becasue there are to many people out there non muslim that would do the same thing. Her being Muslim and doing this does present an image that do not want especially if it is now known they were making her an outfit so she could work.

Stop trying to make everything personal.

Mad I do not think you were trying to be bigoted especially with your previous posts in regards to thought patterns of others against other religeous views but the words you use when talking about Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints do seem full of hate and bigotry.

I could be wrong though ...PEACE

couple things i wanted to input were that Disney (and i hate to defend them becasue i am not a disney fan!) did want to give her an adapted costume but asked her to work in back until it was ready (they have their costumes made by a certain company) and little miss demanding refused to work in back.

oh boohoo she didnt want to work in back after demanding this at last minute even though she hasnt worn hijab previously. sorry, i wear hijab but if i were going to spring this on an employer out of the blue i would compromise and give them time to give me adapted costume and work wherever they wanted me to in the meanwhile. they didnt ask her to clean toilets, they asked her to work in back till special costume was made; i think that was very big of them to even consider making special adjustment for her after she was already working there wearing no hijab.

this whole thing peeves me off becasue i hate troublemakers

I agree

madame cleo: Yes, you are correct, Jewish and Christian women also cover. But I would argue because you do not understand it (head covering) does not mean it is 'ridiculous'. You ask where in the 'good books' it says to cover then follow that statement with you dont care. So just for the record, for your future reference in case you decide to throw off the religious intolerance, the Qur'an calls for modesty for both men and women and requires that women in particular should not display their beauty. Down the centuries and in many cultures and religions a woman's hair has been considered to be her 'crowning glory'.

/teaching mode OFF

Does not say can not?

Not an expert here but in this day and age hair is the last thing that should be considered to be covered for modesty.

[Peikko 1,575]

Clearly I do understand the reasons given for hair covering by religious folks, I also know that it is at least partly cultural and tradition and only one of many interpretations of a command by god for people to be modest. My opinion on that, is that modesty is not to be found in hair coverings of any body coverings, no matter how large they might be and I can find seeking to find it in such symbolism stupid, I am under no obligation to lend it any weight whatsoever.

That said, if it is a necessary tenet of someone's faith, then it is constitutionally protected, whether I think that it makes any sense or not. If it is true that she was offered a compromise covering that conformed with Disney's view of what they felt was acceptable in terms of their uniform requirements and only had to work in the back while it was being made up for her, I would think she is heading into murky waters and is probably doing a little grandstanding of her own, possibly.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

Polygamy is against the law, the wearing of headscarves is not.

Ahhh, OK. So, in spite of the fact that the 1st amendment actually says "Congress shall pass no law" (and not "private enterprise cannot establish rules," or "Disney definitely can't set their own policies"), it's OK for congress to outlaw polygamy, but not headscarves?

Gotcha.

I don't understand how your "argument" is supposed to prove anything, unless you're suggesting that polygamy should be un-outlawed.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ahhh, OK. So, in spite of the fact that the 1st amendment actually says "Congress shall pass no law" (and not "private enterprise cannot establish rules," or "Disney definitely can't set their own policies"), it's OK for congress to outlaw polygamy, but not headscarves?

Gotcha.

I don't understand how your "argument" is supposed to prove anything, unless you're suggesting that polygamy should be un-outlawed.

Congress was able to outlaw polygamy because there are sound reasons for so doing not because of some whimsy on the part of congressmen, reasons that are perfectly obvious to most people, for starters polygamy does not lend itself to a fair interpretation of marital rights for the women in the arrangement .

Are you seriously going to put forward sound arguments as to why congress should outlaw headscarves?

[sandinista! 1,816]

See EEOC v Regency Health Associates 2004

See Webb v City of Philidelphia 2003

There are cases where not allowing employees has been upheld and this case against Disney could well go in favor of Disney. Banning wearing of the scarf is not a denial of right to practice ones religion.

apples and oranges. the regency health case involved a niqab worn by a medical assistant, that only revealed a small portion of her eyes. they were able to make the case that in a pediatric office it constituted a hardship to the office for patients not to be able to see her face. facial interaction was deemed to be so essential to the function of her job that the hardship argument stood. this woman also lost her case because regency health offered to make accomodations for her religious requirement that her hair be covered, by granting full permission for her to wear a simple headscarf. utterly, completely different from the disney case. there is no basis whatsoever to say that covering her hair interferes with performing her job functions as a restaurant hostess. it does not interfere with her ability to find empty booths for people, hand them menus and get them all a round of ice waters. none at all.

with kimberlie webb, the police officer in philly who wasn't allowed to wear a scarf, the ruling was ridiculous. back in 1999, muslim police officers in newark had already won their case for being exempted from the department's no beard policy. her scarf was no more of a burden than those men's beards were.

a woman who worked for alamo rent a car won a similar case to the disney example.

In November 2001, Ms. Nur requested an accommodation to wear a heard scarf during Ramadan. Ms. Nur was told that she could wear a head covering in the back of the office but not at the front counter where she could be interacting with customers.

During the month of Ramadan, Ms. Nur came to work two days in a row wearing a hijab and refused to remove it while at the front counter. On both occasions, Ms. Nur was counseled for violating the company's dress code policy and was sent home from work.

...Further, the legal standard dictates that the time of examination of the sincerity of an employee's religious belief is at the time the conflict with the employer arose – here, November 2001 and not any earlier time. Consequently, the court believed Ms. Nur succeeded in proving a prima facie case of religious discrimination.

http://www.littler.com/PressPublications/Lists/ASAPs/DispAsaps.aspx?id=1014&asapType=National Edited August 20, 2010 by sandinista!

[justashooter 430]

the odious nature of some of these marriages (i.e. old men marrying barely legal teens).

as usual, the jealous ones who can't get it are saying it's wrong.

[Heracles 417]

Are people going to finally wake up and realize the 1787 Constitution is silly in 2010. AUS and the UK have pandered to this idiocy themselves and I now cannot get pork at certain restaurants or even fast-food chains located in predominately Muslim areas in Aus. So while we bend over backward to cater for these select idiots, as not all are this unreasonable, I have to watch my ever step in many Muslim countries.

There is a reason why the rest of Europe is waking up and demanding they play by their rules. Time people here realize that in 1787, no one had a crystal ball into the future, therefore, could not possibly fathom today's challenges.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Heracles 417]

Nevertheless, why can VJ restrict my First amendment right, pick and choose what speech is acceptable, yet Disney not be able to pick their dress code.

Correction: not be able to continue with the dress code they have had for decades.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Are people going to finally wake up and realize the 1787 Constitution is silly in 2010. AUS and the UK have pandered to this idiocy themselves and I now cannot get pork at certain restaurants or even fast-food chains located in predominately Muslim areas in Aus. So while we bend over backward to cater for these select idiots, as not all are this unreasonable, I have to watch my ever step in many Muslim countries.

There is a reason why the rest of Europe is waking up and demanding they play by their rules. Time people here realize that in 1787, no one had a crystal ball into the future, therefore, could not possibly fathom today's challenges.

The constitution doesn't even come into play here. Despite the rhetoric of some.

The constitution protects you from government. Not some idiocy that you choose to partake in of your own free will.

[Heracles 417]

The constitution doesn't even come into play here. Despite the rhetoric of some.

The constitution protects you from government. Not some idiocy that you choose to partake in of your own free will.

Of course, it can never be the result of stubbornly and blindly relying on a 234 year old document, that is rarely ratified to represent the current challenges.

[Peikko 1,575]

The constitution doesn't even come into play here. Despite the rhetoric of some.

The constitution protects you from government. Not some idiocy that you choose to partake in of your own free will.

Not true, the government protects people from their own idiocy frequently, as it should. No private company can make unreasonable demands of its workforce - a worker can't sign away rights that are protected even if they do sign some idiotic contract that explicitly states that they can - all such clauses are voided. You should watch more judge Judy, you'd learn a lot

[Peikko 1,575]

Are people going to finally wake up and realize the 1787 Constitution is silly in 2010. AUS and the UK have pandered to this idiocy themselves and I now cannot get pork at certain restaurants or even fast-food chains located in predominately Muslim areas in Aus. So while we bend over backward to cater for these select idiots, as not all are this unreasonable, I have to watch my ever step in many Muslim countries.

There is a reason why the rest of Europe is waking up and demanding they play by their rules. Time people here realize that in 1787, no one had a crystal ball into the future, therefore, could not possibly fathom today's challenges.

Whether or not protecting religious practices is reasonable is kind of moot, the fact is that's how things stand and if Disney did flout that then they will fall foul of the law. If you want to change the constitution and disallow religious practice considerations, then by all means agitate to get your way. Bear in mind however that your own religion would likely be affected by any such changes. It would have no effect on me either way.

[Heracles 417]

Not true, the government protects people from their own idiocy frequently, as it should. No private company can make unreasonable demands of its workforce - a worker can't sign away rights that are protected even if they do sign some idiotic contract that explicitly states that they can - all such clauses are voided. You should watch more judge Judy, you'd learn a lot

Disney's demands are hardly "unreasonable". They have a dress code, anyone signing up is made aware of this dress code. Anyone who has actually been to disney is aware of this dress code.

[Peikko 1,575]

Disney's demands are hardly "unreasonable". They have a dress code, anyone signing up is made aware of this dress code. Anyone who has actually been to disney is aware of this dress code.

She was willing to wear the dress code, but she wanted to add a scarf for religious reasons, and?