Disney restaurant hostess sues for permission to wear hijab

[gubbi]

Disney restaurant hostess sues for permission to wear hijab

Imane Boudlal filed a discrimination complaint after being sent home without pay for refusing to take off her headscarf. The company says it offered to let her wear the hijab "in a backstage role."

A Muslim woman who works as a hostess at a Disney-owned restaurant filed a discrimination complaint against the entertainment giant Wednesday, saying they have repeatedly sent her home without pay for refusing to remove her headscarf at work.

Imane Boudlal said she has worked as a hostess at Storyteller's Café in Disney's Grand Californian Hotel & Spa for two years and began wearing her hijab Sunday but was told she would have to remove it or take a job working out of public view.

On Wednesday, shortly after filing a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Boudlal made her fourth attempt of the week — the first with videographers, photographers and reporters in tow — to begin her afternoon shift at the resort-district restaurant, which features a Chip 'n' Dale theme.

Boudlal said she was again told to take off her hijab, the headscarf some Muslim women wear. Boudlal refused and walked out of the hotel, flanked by chanting supporters.

"I've been sent home," she said. "I thought maybe today is my lucky day because I have my friends, my supporters."

Disney officials said Boudlal has never been denied the opportunity to work.

"She's been allowed to work," said Disneyland spokeswoman Suzi Brown. "We've given her the opportunity to work in a backstage role the last several shifts that she's come in."

One backstage role the company offered was a room service cashier, an interim solution until a permanent one could be found, Brown said.

"Don't put me in the back," Boudlal retorted Wednesday, dressed in her workuniform of camp-style green slacks, orange vest and long-sleeved white shirt in addition to her white hijab.

Boudlal, who is from Morocco and recently became a U.S. citizen, said she approached her employer in June about wanting to wear the hijab on the job. She was told the request would have to be approved by the corporate office. When she followed up, she said, she was told the request was still under review.

Last week she was taken to the costume department to look for possible alternatives — a hat was suggested — and she was told she could not wear her own hijab, said Ameena Qazi, staff attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is representing Boudlal.

"We knew Disney is very sensitive to their public image so we said, 'Go public,' " said Leigh Shelton, a spokeswoman with Unite Here Local 11, the union that represents Boudlal.

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. She could not recall whether there were any who worked directly with guests.

Disneyland is working diligently to accommodate her request, Brown said.

The news conference, held on a street corner in front of the hotel where voices were occasionally drowned out by passing traffic as little girls in princess dresses walked by, was not without its references to the "Happiest Place on Earth."

"My advice to Disney company … take a ride on one of your own rides, a little thing called 'It's a Small World,' which celebrates human diversity," Qazi said. "Imane is just celebrating that same diversity."

Seriously, WTF? That 'lady' was working at the restaurant for so many months before and then suddenly one fine day decides to go public about this shyte? Dinesy has rules for their employees' behavior and dresscode!

Lol, what a loser. Imho - nothing but an attention whorse!

 

[razgriz19]

.......................same old story.......

 

[Patriot]

Well on the flip side - She might win the lawsuit as a Sikh women won similar law suit.Similarly Sikhs are allowed to wear Turban in US Army where as Normal Regular Soldiers cannot.

Sikh woman racial, religiously and sexually harassed, wins settlement November 20, 2008

In a settlement agreement, National Wholesale Liquidators (NWL), Mrs. Sukhbir Kaur's former employer, agreed to make changes to their employment policies and pay money damages to nine victims of harassment, including Mrs. Kaur.

The settlement sends a strong message to private employers that discrimination against Sikhs is illegal and will be harshly punished.

Mrs. Kaur's lawsuit alleged that in 2004 an NWL store manager harassed Mrs. Kaur because she was a Sikh, a woman and an Indian.

The manager told her to remove her turban because she "would appear sexier without it." When she refused the manager's repeated advances, he told her that she was not permitted to use the bathroom and would have to wear a diaper to work.

NWL failed to take appropriate action to address and correct the harassment, even after Mrs. Kaur complained. Instead, she was fired.

Mrs. Kaur's matter was first brought to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) attention in July 2005, when the Sikh Coalition filed a charge of discrimination on her behalf with the agency.

The EEOC subsequently conducted an investigation and found that many South Asian workers at NWL's Long Island City store in Queens, NY were being harassed. They endured constant taunts about their national origin and religion, such as "All Indians are nasty," "Sikhs are thieves" or "I'm tired of seeing old Indian faces all the time."

Mrs. Kaur and the EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement with NWL once the charges were filed. When these efforts failed, the EEOC and the Sikh Coalition both filed lawsuits in 2007. Mrs. Kaur was co-represented by the Sikh Coalition and attorney Ravinder Singh Bhalla.

* Watch youTube video of interview with Sukhbir Kaur

* National Wholesale Liquidators files for Chapter 11 November 12, 2008:

Citing the global economic meltdown, National Wholesale Liquidators Inc., a West Hempstead-based discount retailer, has filed for bankruptcy protection.

"It's really a bank-financing issue," Robert Pidgeon, the discounter's director of personnel, said yesterday. "We are caught in the credit crunch of the world."

The company, which operates about 50 stores nationwide, first indicated to vendors that it was having financial difficulties late last month. In a letter to vendors on Oct. 27, the company said lender GE Capital had reduced its credit line by $10 million without notice. The discounter filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Monday night.

"The reason they gave us was the environment outside was so bad that they are trying to protect themselves," the company wrote in the letter, which was shared by a source yesterday.

 

[razgriz19]

Well on the flip side - She might win the lawsuit as a Sikh women won similar law suit.

well i thought sueing is NOT allowed in ISLAM.....? or is it?

 

[CardSharp]

More fuel for the American hate fire

 

[Patriot]

well i thought sueing is NOT allowed in ISLAM.....? or is it?

No Idea but in America it is so easy to sue.People sue each other for stupid reasons.Some Americans were suing BP for false reasons.

 

[gubbi]

Well on the flip side - She might win the lawsuit as a Sikh women won similar law suit.

Big difference here mate. That lady wants to wear a Hijab even after she was told that she cannot due to company's reasons. She was never asked to NOT work. And yet the 'lady' decides to go to work one fine day wearing a Hijag with reporters in tow. The Sikh lady on the other hand, was harassed. Guess you haven't read the article and thats why your ill-informed post.

Similarly Sikhs are allowed to wear Turban in US Army where as Normal Regular Soldiers cannot.

What has that got to do with the topic on hand? How are "normal regular soldiers" even qualified to wear a Sikh turban if they are not Sikhs?
Seriously, are you out of your mind or has logic failed you?

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Isn't Saudi Prince a major share holder in Disney? She should ask him why in his company she can't ware a hijab

 

[GentlemanObserver]

More Islam hatred. Nice. As for certain peoples perspectives... LOL!

FYI:
US Constitutional Amendment No.1 guarantee's a citizens right to express his or her religion IF it does not endanger or harm public safety, cause offence or act against the sate and it's laws.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission if the wearing of Hijab's does not cause any reasonable health and safety hazard the employer has no right to interfere with the individual's religious freedoms and their constitutional rights to express that faith.

In the USA there is a set of long-established legal guidelines on reasonable religious accommodation in the workplace


Now personally i am in no way shape or form in favour of Hijab's *(hate the damn things) but if Mc'Donald's can be forced to allows Sikh's to wear a turban whilst on duty, the same should be for a Hijab "afterall it's a head-dress".

Personally i just see this as more hatred towards Islam which is becoming quite the norm here in the west. In my line of work i come across a large chunk of bigots and what's more disappointing is that the sheer hatred they have for Islam comes from misunderstanding and fear of the unknown, sigh....

 

[Patriot]

Big difference here mate. That lady wants to wear a Hijab even after she was told that she cannot due to company's reasons. She was never asked to NOT work. And yet the 'lady' decides to go to work one fine day wearing a Hijag with reporters in tow. The Sikh lady on the other hand, was harassed. Guess you haven't read the article and thats why your ill-informed post.

What has that got to do with the topic on hand? How are "normal regular soldiers" even qualified to wear a Sikh turban if they are not Sikhs?
Seriously, are you out of your mind or has logic failed you?

My point is if Certain exceptions can be made for Sikhs then why not Muslims?She after all is not talking about burqa but just scarf which is similar to scarf a christian nun wears.

 

[anathema]

If Disney doesnt give woman permission to wear Hijab..then she should quit Disney....whats the point in suing Disney ? You cant have your cake and eat it too..

I guess this is a publicity stunt ! Cheap.

 

[FlyingEagle]

Shame for the countries who consider themselves as the grandfather of INDEPENDENT, DEMOCRATIC and many BIG Words...........................If a sikh use tubine its ok, If people cover their faces with medical covers to avoid viruses is OK BUT to be a MUSLIM in this world is not OK

Regards,
FE
Hamaisha Kush Raho

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Big difference here mate. That lady wants to wear a Hijab even after she was told that she cannot due to company's reasons. She was never asked to NOT work. And yet the 'lady' decides to go to work one fine day wearing a Hijag with reporters in tow. The Sikh lady on the other hand, was harassed. Guess you haven't read the article and thats why your ill-informed post.

What has that got to do with the topic on hand? How are "normal regular soldiers" even qualified to wear a Sikh turban if they are not Sikhs?
Seriously, are you out of your mind or has logic failed you?

Double standards!

So the sikh woman can wear the head dress/turban.
And sikhs in US army can be given a special permission coz of there religion to wear the turban but a Muslim women cant wear a hijab?

Bloody hipocrisy.

 

[FlyingEagle]

My point is if Certain exceptions can be made for Sikhs then why not Muslims?She after all is not talking about burqa but just scarf which is similar to scarf a christian nun wears.

If one Muslim woman even wear burka to kisi k father ka kaya jata hy?

Regards,
FE
hamaisha Kush raho

 

[GentlemanObserver]

If Disney doesnt give woman permission to wear Hijab..then she should quit Disney....whats the point in suing Disney ? You cant have your cake and eat it too..

I guess this is a publicity stunt ! Cheap.

Except that it is NOT a publicity stunt, rather she is only asking what she is allowed under US Employment Law and the constitution. There are legal guidelines on reasonable religious accommodation in the workplace.

Furthermore there is precedent of employers allowing employees to wear religious head-dress and symbols in the workplace, this includes Rastafarians and skihs, famous cases include Marriott, Mc'Donalds and AMC Cinemas.

I don't see what the fuss is about... It's a head-dress, she is allowed to wear it under law and the constitution protects her right to express her faith.

I don't see how the Hijab affects health and safety, so this is a aesthetics issue and in my opinion carry's no weight.