PDA

View Full Version : Ex-Disneyland employee sues company for religious discrimination - abc7.com



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

MousePlanet AutoPoster
08-14-2012, 12:00 PM
Disneyland employee sues company for religious discrimination

Imane Boudlal, 28, says her time working at Disneyland was not pleasant. She claims that from the beginning she was harassed by co-workers because she is Muslim. "I was called a camel, a terrorist, someone that speaks a terrorist language. I was a...
More... (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNFUsyNPyyOr-nhJCAtJWyEzyiaZyg&url=http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section%3Dnews/local/orange_county%26id%3D8772374)

shna
08-15-2012, 05:38 PM
Would someone please fix the post above?

carolinakid
08-16-2012, 06:01 AM
I didn't think Hijab Hannah would go away quietly. I don't believe her cast member harassment claims one bit. She'll probably walk away with millions, though....

pcrazy99
08-16-2012, 08:39 AM
Please. If religion was all that important to her she would have worn the scarf when she started, not two years later. I don't think displaying your religion belongs at the workplace anyways.

AVP
08-16-2012, 09:07 AM
I didn't think Hijab Hannah would go away quietly.Given how ugly the last thread about this issue got, I'm going to nip the name-calling in the bud right now.

This is already a heated topic. I ask that everyone maintain some degree of civility when discussing it.

Thank you,

Adrienne
- yes, for the moderators

iceman559
08-16-2012, 09:07 AM
I found a really good article (in my opinion, anyway) about this topic on the Washington Times' website.

Here (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/political-potpourri/2012/aug/15/muslim-woman-sues-disney-right-wear-hijab/)

Perhaps the best points the writer makes are:


Disney has long been an advocate of diversity, as emphatically characterized by its popular Fantasyland ride called “It’s a Small World.” What the organization does not want, however, is to be perceived as supportive of any particular religion. The ultimate goal is to create a spirit of fun and fantasy, which it clearly does throughout all of its theme parks.

What is being mistaken for discrimination has to do with Disney’s focus on creating a place of imagination, not tied to the real world of religion or politics, which has been a central philosophical concept for the Disney parks since Disneyland's inception.

Many employees are hired to portray the roles of specific characters and to wear costumes that are appropriate to particular themes. In keeping with the corporate philosophy of presenting a particular persona to the public, beards are also off-limits for male employees.

Let's also remember EPCOT. Heck, they even have a Moroccan pavilion. Why didn't Boudlal, a citizen of Morcco, go work over there if her religion is that important to her? But just in general...these pavilions are staffed by people from their respective countries. Mexico, Norway, China, Germany, Italy, America, Japan, Morocco, France, United Kingdom and Canada. I don't think Disney really is discriminating against people from other countries.


Also, this issue first came up a few years ago (August of 2010) when she filed a claim with the Equal Opportunity Commission, back when the hotel workers' union was trying to defame Disney in any way it could. I can't believe that the EOC actually said she has a right to sue. I realize that doesn't really mean much as far as whether or not she could file the lawsuit, but their endorsement just shows what's wrong with Equal Opportunity. Disney provided her alternatives...and not just alternative coverings. They said she can wear her own, but she'd have to be moved to a different position and she refused. It's not like Disney didn't try to accommodate her once she brought it to their attention two and a half years after she started working there.

AVP
08-16-2012, 09:14 AM
Perhaps the best points the writer makes are:


In keeping with the corporate philosophy of presenting a particular persona to the public, beards are also off-limits for male employees.

His research apparently overlooked that the facial hair policy for men changed earlier this year. Some believe this change was made to increase the applicant pool at Disneyland and WDW, and circumvent additional discrimination claims.

AVP

iceman559
08-16-2012, 09:17 AM
His research apparently overlooked that the facial hair policy for men changed earlier this year. Some believe this change was made to increase the applicant pool at Disneyland and WDW, and circumvent additional discrimination claims.

AVP

Very true. I did forget about that. But it was just recently changed, and recently enforced. It's not like it was an old policy that was never enforced and finally just officially changed. But also, the policy still limits how long the beard can be, correct? If I recall correctly, it stated it had to be a certain minimum length (no stubble) and less than a maximum length, in addition to being grown on personal time and not while working at Disney (to avoid the stubble look). Also, wasn't there a restriction on where you could work with a beard or was that just the discussion we were having? I can't remember.

Drince88
08-16-2012, 09:54 AM
I'm kind of surprised it took her this long to file suit - or was she waiting for appeals to be exhausted through other means?

AVP
08-16-2012, 10:07 AM
I'm kind of surprised it took her this long to file suit - or was she waiting for appeals to be exhausted through other means?Prior to filing a lawsuit workers are required to file a claim with the EEOC. After that process is concluded, and if the EEOC decides not to sue on the worker's behalf, the worker received a Notice of Right to Sue, and is required to do so within 90 days or lose the right.

A Notice of Right to Sue can be issued for two main reasons:

The EEOC investigated the claim and decided there is no reasonable cause to believe discrimination took place. In this case, they essentially say, "we're not convinced, but you can sue if you want."
The EEOC investigated the claim and decided there WAS reasonable cause to believe discrimination took place. In this case, the EEOC issues a "Letter of Determination" to both parties, and tries to get the two sides to reach a settlement via negotiation or arbitration. IF the two sides can not reach a settlement via the conciliation process, the EEOC issues a Notice of Right to Sue.


In other words, the Notice of Right to Sue does not, in and of itself, indicate one way or the other whether the EEOC found reasonable evidence of discrimination. It just means that the worker went through the EEOC-mandated steps, and has exhausted the administrative options.

The lawsuit states that she filed a claim with the EEOC in August, 2010, and received the Notice of Right to Sue in August, 2012. 2 years is a LONG time for the EEOC to investigate a claim, and that makes me believe the case may have gone to arbitration. This is completely my speculation, and not based in fact; I'm contacting both the ACLU and Disney to get some clarification.

AVP

Drince88
08-16-2012, 10:10 AM
Thanks, AVP.
Wouldn't a letter of determination be public information?

shna
08-16-2012, 11:15 AM
For those implying that her religious views aren't that strong if she didn't wear the hijab from the get-go, I'd like to point out that people change their religion or change interpretation of religion all the time. It's possible that she wasn't as devout at first or that she was a member of a congregation that didn't embrace hijab-wearing but changed to a more conservative mosque at some point - or even that further study of doctrine influenced her interpretation of her religious texts.

I still find her claims of discrimination tough to swallow when Disney clearly tried to make some sort of compromise -- but I'm not about to question how religious she is or how important the outward display of her faith is to her.

AVP
08-16-2012, 11:28 AM
Wouldn't a letter of determination be public information?Potentially, if you wanted to go through the FOIA process.

Drince88
08-16-2012, 11:29 AM
Potentially, if you wanted to go through the FOIA process.

Never mind!

I was thinking it would be more like the health department inspection info on restaurants.

And very well said, shna!

bennette
08-16-2012, 12:16 PM
And very well said, shna!

Ditto.

Toocherie
08-16-2012, 12:26 PM
Ditto.

I am also a ditto. From what I have read about this case, I think Disney has bent over backwards to accommodate her.

At some point you either decide to live with the accommodation that is made or you move on. I can't imagine that being a hostess at Storyteller's was her life's dream and that it has somehow shattered her career path to not get to work in that position. There is not an inherent right to be "on stage" and from what I understand she was offered more than one behind the scenes job where she could wear her own hijab. (By the way--I actually thought the hijab and cowboy hat combo was nice.)

The continuing issue leads me to believe that someone or something is behind all this.

AVP
08-16-2012, 12:40 PM
The continuing issue leads me to believe that someone or something is behind all this.If you feel like slogging through a 28-page filing, the ACLU posted it (http://www.aclu-sc.org/cases/disney/complaint/). There are some serious allegations of harassment and discrimination in there that were not mentioned when this case first made news. I'm honestly not sure what to make of these additional claims.

AVP

iceman559
08-16-2012, 12:54 PM
For those implying that her religious views aren't that strong if she didn't wear the hijab from the get-go, I'd like to point out that people change their religion or change interpretation of religion all the time. It's possible that she wasn't as devout at first or that she was a member of a congregation that didn't embrace hijab-wearing but changed to a more conservative mosque at some point - or even that further study of doctrine influenced her interpretation of her religious texts.

I still find her claims of discrimination tough to swallow when Disney clearly tried to make some sort of compromise -- but I'm not about to question how religious she is or how important the outward display of her faith is to her.

I would agree....IF she wasn't on record at saying that she tried to wear it to work when she read that she could while studying for her U.S. citizenship exam. If it was really that important to her from a strictly religious standard, new or not, why wouldn't she have researched that prior? That, the amazingly coincidental timing of her original complaint during the period where the union she was a part of was attempting to defame Disney in any way possible, AND the fact that Disney said she can wear her own head covering provided she works backstage (which she refused) make a quite convincing case that this isn't for religious reasons.

She has never once (at least not that I have seen reported) indicated that she suddenly became more religious for whatever reason.

candles71
08-16-2012, 01:03 PM
I am not done reading the filing but I have a question about part of it. It repeatedly says Disney did not follow up with her on any corrective actions or sanctions towards her harassers. As far as I know, she wouldn't be informed, correct? As an employer Disney would be unable to tell her what was done, they can tell her something was, but not the details. (Does that make sense to anyone?)

AVP
08-16-2012, 01:09 PM
She has never once (at least not that I have seen reported) indicated that she suddenly became more religious for whatever reason.Read the filing - there's a whole section about when and why she decided to begin wearing the hijab. She was actually doing so in her personal life for about 9 months, removing it in public only to go to work.


It repeatedly says Disney did not follow up with her on any corrective actions or sanctions towards her harassers. As far as I know, she wouldn't be informed, correct? As an employer Disney would be unable to tell her what was done, they can tell her something was, but not the details.Yes. When I handled issues like this as a manager, I could never discuss disciplinary actions taken against one employee with another. That does not mean the actions were not taken. However, at least in my experience, I would have been directed by HR to talk to the employee making the claim and tell them we were handling the issue, if not discussing the specific actions taken. It sounds like there was no follow up with her, and, at least according to her claims, the harassment continued.

AVP

Drince88
08-16-2012, 01:10 PM
Edited because AVP posted while I was typing.

The 'continued harrassment' was part that was bothersome to me. I would really hope that no manager, no matter where they worked, would allow harrassment of the type she claims to continue. Those are the type of things that I'd tend to 'go momma bear' on someone if I witnessed it.

candles71
08-16-2012, 01:14 PM
That makes sense, candles. I'd be shocked if they could disclose disciplinary action taken against someone else to the accuser.

That is was I was remembering. (I haven't been in the work place since just before N was born, so it has been awhile.) Thanks AVP, I did read it continued, but kept tripping on the part of no follow up, and when I trip on something I tend to focus on that. :p I am also very surprised there is a request for a jury. It seems counter productive to me.

danyoung
08-16-2012, 02:37 PM
The 'continued harrassment' was part that was bothersome to me. I would really hope that no manager, no matter where they worked, would allow harrassment of the type she claims to continue. Those are the type of things that I'd tend to 'go momma bear' on someone if I witnessed it.

Yeah, I have a problem here as well. If this verbal abuse was going on, and if she reported it, then management should have swooped in and put a stop to it. And given how many diverse people work for the mouse, you've gotta think that this should have been dealt with. Now, if she just took the abuse and said nothing about it, then it's not the employer's fault, but the employee.

jsilkey
08-16-2012, 02:54 PM
My husband works for a large, international employer, but in a local store. The managers document e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, as legal protection for the company. I cannot imagine that if she did complain, Disney lacks internal documentation. I would guess she was given copies of the documentation at the time of her complaint. If not, then something is pretty fish-y. Maybe someone who has worked at Disney can chime in as to whether they document employee interactions in this way....

zombie pirate
08-16-2012, 03:06 PM
There are two sides to every story, I just wonder if the lady did a little name calling herself at work, or if her attitude at work brought on problems.