Disney restaurant hostess sues for permission to wear hijab

[Awesome]

The slam dunk:

26-Year-Old Anaheim Muslim Woman Fights Disneyland on Headscarf ? Saturday?s Battle - OC180NEWS

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sex, race, and religion, among other factors,” attorney Fred S. Peters told OC180NEWS. “If an employee's religiously expressive garment can be reasonably accommodated--in other words if the employee can do his or her job just as well when wearing the religiously expressive item--then it is incumbent on the employer to accommodate that expression.”

To express your religious identity, is a right accorded to all Americans by law. You can't stop it.

 

[Fireurimagination]

You can't have dress codes that will exclude an entire religion out. This is the reason why almost all cases filed by Sikhs when employers forced them to remove the turban has been won by the employee.


Again, that's prayer and actual time-off of business hours and actual loss of business due to employee action. Why not compare it with the Sikh Turban cases which have always been found in favor of the sikh.

That's what I said it's up to the management to decide, you don't want or expect a burqa clad or turban clad receptionist or air-hostess, do you?

As freedom of religion is your fundamental right, so is the way to run my company my fundamental right, and your fundamental right can't trample over my fundamental right. If formal dressing with a tie is the norm in my company and your religion states tie is anti-my religion I won't wear it, nobody is forcing you please move out after all it's my company

 

[Fireurimagination]

The slam dunk:

26-Year-Old Anaheim Muslim Woman Fights Disneyland on Headscarf ? Saturday?s Battle - OC180NEWS



To express your religious identity, is a right accorded to all Americans by law. You can't stop it.

From the article:

Brown said the hijab would be a departure from the costume policy for Boudlal's role as hostess.

"It has to do with the costume, every role at Disneyland Resort has a specific costume," Brown said, adding that a number of employees wear religious clothing and work behind the scenes.

 

[Spring Onion]

For the Sikhs, the turban is a religious symbol. Is hijab a religious symbol in Islam. Ask your scholars and then get back here.

Lol, and people talk about hypocrisy without even understanding the true meaning of the word. This particular incident here, is one perfect example of such.

The Hijab is banned in some western countries on the basis of its being religious symbol according to them.

In these countries religious symbols are not allowed in some areas like schools and other, Then why SIKHS are allowed to wear their religious symbols ??


Hijab is bashed on the basis of its being seen as religious symbol by Islamo-Phobic people around the world.

If Hijab is not a religious symbol and just a dress then my point again is Let us (women) being human use our right whatever we want to wear as our right to wear be it a hijab, burqa or bikini.

Why an attired should be made a criteria for deciding whether the woman should be given backstage job or on stage job????????

 

[Awesome]

That's what I said it's up to the management to decide

No the management can't decide to override federal law

you don't want or expect a burqa clad or turban clad receptionist or air-hostess, do you?

If the management can't prove that a stripper can't do her job properly then even she has the right to wear the burkha. It depends if they can prove that Title VII does not apply on them.

As freedom of religion is your fundamental right, so is the way to run my company my fundamental right, and your fundamental right can't trample over my fundamental right.

Actually you don't have the right by federal law to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If formal dressing with a tie is the norm in my company and your religion states tie is anti-my religion I won't wear it, nobody is forcing you please move out after all it's my company

There is a court to decide these things, and arguments of both sides would be heard. That's why Disney has come up with a weird argument. "We consider even people working in restaurants to be 'on stage' and the simple pant shirt is not a uniform, but its a costume". They are definitely over-stretching the truth and won't win hopefully

 

[Fireurimagination]

No the management can't decide to override federal law

Yup it's for the courts to decide has management have overridden the federal law or not?

If the management can't prove that a stripper can't do her job properly then even she has the right to wear the burkha. It depends if they can prove that Title VII does not apply on them.

Different people have different POV, the lady in the case may very well win (like the Sikh examples you have mentioned) but commonsense states otherwise

Actually you don't have the right by federal law to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Courts will decide that

There is a court to decide these things, and arguments of both sides would be heard. That's why Disney has come up with a weird argument. "We consider even people working in restaurants to be 'on stage' and the simple pant shirt is not a uniform, but its a costume". They are definitely over-stretching the truth and won't win hopefully

The lady never wore it initially, why didn't she protested in the interview or on the first day, she never wore it for 2 years LOL, she just want to rake in few moolah, nothing more

 

[Fireurimagination]

The Hijab is banned in some western countries on the basis of its being religious symbol according to them.

In these countries religious symbols are not allowed in some areas like schools and other, Then why SIKHS are allowed to wear their religious symbols ??


Hijab is bashed on the basis of its being seen as religious symbol by Islamo-Phobic people around the world.

If Hijab is not a religious symbol and just a dress then my point again is Let us (women) being human use our right whatever we want to wear as our right to wear be it a hijab, burqa or bikini.

Why an attired should be made a criteria for deciding whether the woman should be given backstage job or on stage job????????

Please wear hijab, burqa or bikini whenever and where ever you can but not on the job, if the job criteria states otherwise

What if I hire a receptionist and after two years she wants to wear the full veil? Will you endorse that? it may not interfere in her capability to work as a receptionist (she may sue me and win) but it's just plain stupid

 

[dbc]

On the contrary in most countries (as I can tell, especially in the US) private companies are subject to equal opportunity laws. If they are going to take away the opportunity of a Muslim American, then they are in violation of the law.

American law follows the "at-will" employment doctrine where either party is free to disengage for good,bad or no cause. Restaurants and theme parks have a strict non-negotiable dress code, I'm pretty sure it is one of the many terms she agreed to when she signed the employment contract.

 

[Awesome]

American law follows the "at-will" employment doctrine where either party is free to disengage for good,bad or no cause. Restaurants and theme parks have a strict non-negotiable dress code, I'm pretty sure it is one of the many terms she agreed to when she signed the employment contract.

The language used in Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "incumbent" upon the Employer to adhere to these laws.

As I said, lots of precedence already exists with the Indian origin sikh community, refusing to take off their specific form of turban.

I mean if the owner of a strip joint can't prove that the stripper can't work without a hijab, then he has to allow it too. The language is mandatory.

As a defense the employer HAS to, prove that the person cannot do their duties because of the article of clothing. Which is why disney has concocted this defence that she is an on-stage actor even though the restaurant is separate from the Disney Land and there is no actual stage.

 

[Vassnti]

I dont understand the problem, seeing its a restaurant people should wear some thing to cover their hair.
what looks better

or

better than

 

[dbc]

The language used in Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "incumbent" upon the Employer to adhere to these laws.

As I said, lots of precedence already exists with the Indian origin sikh community, refusing to take off their specific form of turban.

I mean if the owner of a strip joint can't prove that the stripper can't work without a hijab, then he has to allow it too. The language is mandatory.

As a defense the employer HAS to, prove that the person cannot do their duties because of the article of clothing. Which is why disney has concocted this defence that she is an on-stage actor even though the restaurant is separate from the Disney Land and there is no actual stage.

The person in question waived her rights when she signed her employment contract which barred her from deviating from assigned attire - a condition of employment! There are several known instances of employees being asked to leave for refusing to conceal a cross pendant inside a company mandated costume. I'd say the very same, if the person in question was Jewish and insisted on wearing a yarmulke to work.

 

[Awesome]

The person in question waived her rights when she signed her employment contract which barred her from deviating from assigned attire - a condition of employment! There are several known instances of employees being asked to leave for refusing to conceal a cross pendant inside a company mandated costume. I'd say the very same, if the person in question was Jewish and insisted on wearing a yarmulke to work.

Actually what the lawyers are saying that Disney is not allowed to put in such conditions and such contractual obligations would themselves be deemed illegal. That's why Disney is not even using that argument, instead its using the on-stage/off-stage argument.

The court should, as per law, be looking for some evidence from Disney about whether or not her Hijab curtails her ability to serve as a waitress.

 

[somebozo]

In America there is a culture of oppurtunistim where people thrive to make a fast buck by sueing someone or their claim to 20 seconds of fame. Waitresses are not exactly hired for wearing scarves but for their looks and ability to service customers with smile. Someone is looking for a job at the wrong place. Such bells and whistles discredit this whole piece of news.

 

[fallstuff]

That's what I said it's up to the management to decide, you don't want or expect a burqa clad or turban clad receptionist or air-hostess, do you?

As freedom of religion is your fundamental right, so is the way to run my company my fundamental right, and your fundamental right can't trample over my fundamental right. If formal dressing with a tie is the norm in my company and your religion states tie is anti-my religion I won't wear it, nobody is forcing you please move out after all it's my company

Actually any contractby by default is subservient to local, county, state and Federal laws. Even if she signed it, she has not signed her rights away as far as the courts are concerned. The contract must be in compliance with civil, UCC, and criminal codes of respected governing bodies.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

I think head scarf should be allowed..if sikh turban can be allowed..
either you ban both or allow both.
but what will happen with this is that companies will use their legal right to select employees at their will and they will start avoiding muslims.