Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Disney Sued By Hijab-Wearing Muslima

(Two posts today. Please scroll down)

With a hat tip to Tammy Swofford for the story below.


More HERE at Reuters. Note the following:
...Among the [dress code] restrictions, the policy prohibits visible tattoos and fingernails that exceed a quarter of an inch, the lawsuit said.

Boudlal said she was given the choice of working in a back area, away from customers, or wearing a fedora-style hat on top of her head scarf. When Boudlal refused, she was fired...
Read Tammy Swofford's commentary HERE. Excerpt and my brief commentary below the fold.
Dear Corporate America:

Have you updated your policies to maintain clear workplace compliance to code of ethics and compliance with any corporate grooming standard? What about your standard for private acts of worship within the public space?

If not, in the future, you may hire a "moderate" Muslim employee who later sues for the right to pray at work, with a separate space for ablution, and an additional space to pray.

If not, in the future you may hire a "moderate" Muslim woman who presents without hijab, and later sues to wear hijab.

These issues are going to create morale problems in the future for many corporations....


[...]

...The Muslim employee who had such a strong conviction toward hijab should have left Disney, and sought a job which would allow hijab. A religious conviction which costs the other, instead of the believer, is bullying behavior.

We are ill-prepared for the gradual encroachment of Islamic law into America, with the erosion of the principles which make us a great place for all immigrants to live.
The rest of Tammy Swofford's commentary is HERE. Worth your time.

Furthermore, it is un-American to give such special treatment for practitioners of the followers of Allah.

May Disney win this law suit! Otherwise, there will be no limit to such frivolous litigations.

PS: Moderate Muslims, where is your outcry?

38 comments:

  1. Legal jihad!

    That's the bottom line!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don’t agree the lawsuit is frivolous. For one thing, filing a law suit is a far better option than walking in to your place of work and blowing yourself (and everyone else) to smithereens. For another thing, Disney has a gazillion lawyers working for them; were it not for lawsuits, they wouldn’t have anything to do. We can agree this person is an idiot, but we have to keep in mind that even idiots can have access to our system of justice.

    Actually, this claim sounds remarkably similar to the woman who asserted that the state of Florida had no right to photograph her for a driver’s license without her burqa. That claim was soundly defeated by the courts. I wonder if the same Imam isn’t behind this issue, as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert,
    Disney can stand up to the expense of such a law suit. Many smaller businesses cannot.

    I deem this law suit as "frivolous" because it's a waste of court time and flies in the face of common sense, i.e., that employers have the right to make certain demands of their employees. Disney has ALWAYS had certain requirements, and this Muslima well knew those requirements.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tammy's commentary was very well stated. This is religious doctrine trumping the constitutional right of a business owner to set policy.

    She doesn't have to work there.

    This could be solved by putting the activist woman in a costume that covers both here face and the hijab.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And one more thing....Courts could put a stop to such law suits by fining those who bring such law suits -- assuming, of course, that the court finds against the plaintiff.

    I'm not certain, but I read somewhere that some courts in other countries do just that.

    As one who was involved in a civil law suit as a plaintiff, I can tell you that I had to put up a big-bucks deposit just to get my case heard. I complained, of course, but I can see the reasoning behind such a policy.

    Gotta go! I have a doctor's appointment!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was going to suggest a Porky Pig costume, but that would have been gratuitous...

    ReplyDelete
  7. These people never miss a chance. And, of course, the ACLU always has to chime in. Putting in for a job at McDonalds and since I'm a confirmed nudist I demand the right to wear my birthday suit!

    ReplyDelete
  8. But AOW ... work with me here. After filing a lawsuit, would you want the judge to say, "You're being stupid. Case dismissed"?

    I think not.

    Everyone deserves his or her day in court. In truth, this woman may be a complete idiot. Maybe it is part of a “legal jihad,” but the fact remains that we either have a system of justice, or we don’t. There’s no middle ground. The woman isn’t suing a small business; she’s suing Disney. Once decided in favor of Disney, small businesses won’t have to worry about someone who is an idiot, suing them over dress codes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Silverfiddle: "This could be solved by putting the activist woman in a costume" that closely resembles a feeding buck deer and stationing her near a road during hunting season.

    This burkaed-up piece of crap is a Black Muslim scumbag who has no idea what Islam is even about, she's just hoping to get rich from a nice settlement with Disney, and YES, Robert, this is frivolous as Hell. Who do you think pays for that judge's wages and the courthouse and maintaining the courthouse and the bailiffs and clerks and stenographers and interpreters and police guards and on and on? Our court sytems costs PLENTY to operate, we taxpayers PAY for it, and this is nothing but using our courts for an extortion attempt. I'd just as soon throw her against a wall and shoot her. That would be justice.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Robert,
    After filing a lawsuit, would you want the judge to say, "You're being stupid. Case dismissed"?

    I think not.


    Actually, that happened to ME in 2009 in a civil case. -- in an arbitration session.

    A lot of time passed in that hearing before the officer of the court dropped that hammer and denied an appropriate settlement. I am forbidden to divulge the terms of the settlement, but I can say that the amount I got didn't cover the medical bills that ensued after an illegal immigrant -- a man under deportation orders for over 20 years -- ran a stop sign and plowed into me, the result being PERMANENT damage to my spine and hit and. In fact the officer of the court said the following words, which I'll never forget:

    "If it were the other way around and YOU had hit the poor immigrant, he'd take you to the clearner's."

    I kid you not!

    Of course, matters are handled differently in a federal court.

    Everyone deserves his or her day in court.

    Supposedly, we have that. However, in ACTUAL PRACTICE, we do not!

    Look, I dont' want to start an argument. You and I typically agree, I think.

    But a law suit filed against you will cost you.

    One never knows what will happen in court -- be the decision by a judge or a jury.

    In the case found in the body of this post, the case should be decided not in the Muslima's favor or, perhaps, dismissed for lack of cause (or whatever the legal term is). If that is the decision, fine. It will cost Disney, of course; but Disney is wealthy enough to absorb that cost; perhaps Disney has litigation insurance. If the case is found in favor of the Muslima, the precedent will be set -- the precedent for special treatment for Muslims.

    As I think about what you typed in, perhaps this is a better approach....File a law suit that goes against you as plaintiff, YOU THE PLAINTIFF will pay the defense's costs. Not sure that such is a fair situation either.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Robert,
    I forgot something.

    You said: Once decided in favor of Disney, small businesses won’t have to worry about someone who is an idiot, suing them over dress codes. .

    IF such is the decision.

    I guess that I'm quite soured about our justice system -- even if it is the best in the world (So I've been told by many legal immigrants).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh boy, got a long post ahead! Where to start...

    Ah. This is absurd! This woman is just trying to stir things up. Or doesn't know what rights actually are in this country.

    Where to start... well, for one, her suing Disney. Why is she doing it besides to make a scene? Disney, what from I can see, did all they could to help her. Offering different jobs she would be allowed to wear her traditional garb, or to with a bit extra ( a hat) and keep her current job. Frankly, that's generous. They do not have to comply with her- a dress code is a dress code.

    And frankly, at a job, you check your beliefs at the door, as I know from personal experience. I do not have a paying job- rather a volunteer (though we get perks that almost equal pay) online job as a moderator for a forum. Now, in this job there are restrictions on what I can or cannot say about things, alienating me from my friends (cause I started as a forum-ite) and causing frustration. As well, I am not allowed to in some ways practice my faith. I can say I'm Christian, but I am not allowed to have a cross (unless small) in my avatar, which I found out at Easter when I wanted to have a more religious avatar. I got around by just using a crusader type character, which has a cross on her breastplate with no issues. But the point is, as an volunteer, there are rules there that may encroach on my 'rights.' However, it is MY decision whether I work there or not! I can leave at any time if these things bug my that much (they don't. The company is good, just has an image they keep.)

    And that's my second point. If the rules of conduct that EVERY company has annoys you, you can leave. There is no law saying otherwise. You do not have a right to a job, or a job there. THEY do not have to accommodate YOU. Other way around.

    And point three. To have a job is a bit of a privilege, or a gift. If a friend gave you a gift that may offend you, you cannot force them to get you another. The company does not have to change for the person, for if the person doesn't like it, like a present, they can leave it. If it offends you THAT MUCH, LEAVE. But you can't make them change.

    Frankly, the fact that she is Muslim doesn't matter. If she were, say, Christian and wanted to were a cross and was not allowed, then the issue still stands. No. You obey company policy, or leave. Or get the company to change it (NOT by suing, for pities sake that shouldn't be allowed...).

    And of course there is the slippery slope. If the head piece is allowed, prayer mats will be next, and specialized bathrooms, etc, etc, etc. And why not? This passed! And any other religious thing would be next, and that would make things very confusing very quickly because religions seldom agree on ANYTHING. If it was just Muslims that's even worse, because that's plain favoritism and last time I checked, that is NOT ALLOWED IN THE WORK FORCE.

    And one last thing. Why do Muslims think they are so special? Why do they believe they have a right to make others do what they want? Why do they think they can make others bend over backwards for them? I do not see other belief systems doing this. Or is it just a mark of extremism? I dunno, but this arrogance to think we have to bow to them is sickening.

    Final note: Woman, you got more than the company needed to do, and you just spat at them. If you don't like the conditions of the job, LEAVE IT.

    -Wildstar


    PS About the insult thing... I dunno how much companies are responsible to prevent workers from doing that, so I'll leave that for the working adults here!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wildstar: "Or doesn't know what rights actually are in this country."

    LOOK at her. She's no arab and she's no Somalian. She's an American Negro and a member of the Black Muslims. Probably one of Malcomb X's followers. Of course she knows what rights are here.

    This is extortion and a bald attempt to give mu-slimes special treatment over the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wildstar,
    You moderate a forum? I didn't know that! Now I am burning with curiosity!

    I'm disgusted that such restrictions were put on your avatar. Must not have been a Blogger site, huh?

    not have to comply with her- a dress code is a dress code.

    EXACTLY!

    BTW, you are exactly correct about the slippery slope.

    Where I work, there are certain outfits that I will not wear to work although I DO wear them at home. Right now, I'm wearing something that I probably will not wear to work; note that I said "probably." What I'm wearing at this very moment isn't professional dress -- not by a long shot.

    We have a sort of dress code in the homsechool venue.

    Years ago in the homeschool group, we had a young man with a studded collar and, ahem, a rather alarming haircut. I didn't say a word, and neither did any administrators. Several weeks into the year, this young man came up to me and said, "You've probably noticed that I've changed the way I dress. I look too bizarre for the group. Besides, I am spending too much time and money on this nonsense."

    Well, I'm rambling. But the POINT is that employers and others do have dress codes. If the dress code offends you, don't take a job there. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Silverfiddle,
    I was going to suggest a Porky Pig costume...

    I couldn't stop myself from chuckling.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @AOW I haven't mentioned it before? Yes I do- a forum run and owned by a game company (no not Blogger). Honestly, it didn't bug me extremely (an friend of mine older and higher in the hierarchy was furious though)- it came with the territory and was sweeping for any religion. As mods, we are the active face of the company, and more than that, the forumites have to respect us and treat us as an authority. We cannot give the impression the company is for (or against) something if they aren't. Volunteers or no, we are staff.

    And ya, dress codes. I bet alot of the students don't like it either! But it is unnecessary... btw, do I know (of) that kid? Doubt it yet curious.

    ...now I'm rambling. -.-

    -Wildstar

    ReplyDelete
  17. Either this is a moneymaking scheme, or “legal” jihad. Disney gave opportunities to work in other positions, and she turned each of those overtures down. The court is not going to respond well to these facts. Amazing, isn’t it? At a time when so many people are out of work, she’s playing this game. Maybe she can find a job at Abu’s Stop n’ Rob … or go back to Indonesia.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My guess is that the harassment complaints are bullshit and she isn't getting anywhere with the hijab suit because it is well established that employers can dictate employees uniforms.

    Disney will plow them under.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ummm... OOOPS. The article says she was born in Morocco, so I have to concede that she knows a whole lot more about Islam than I gave her credit for. Which takes her behavior from being greedy and stupid to a more evil level of waging lawsuit-jihad. Even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wildstar,
    You never knew that student. He was in my classes in 2001-2002.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think it is legitimate for frivolous lawsuits, such as this one, to be dismissed by a judge,

    Do they not know the law? Also, there is an appeal process if the dismissed party feels that it is unjust.

    ReplyDelete
  22. NOTICE:

    I haven't been able to participate much in this thread because of personal and school-prep matters.

    Where do the hours go? I've been up since 3:30 A.M. today, and just now finished the last of my start-up lesson plans. **sigh**

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wildstar,
    Unfortunately, dress codes in school groups are necessary for lots of reasons.

    Of course, as you know because you have seen me out of the classroom, I dress quite differently in my private life. And, of course, when I go to a classical concert, I really dress up.

    And you should have seen my ballroom dance outfits. Gorgeous! But a bit, ahem, provocative, especially for the Latin dances.

    I should dig out some old photos for you to see. LOL!

    It's all about appropriateness!

    I'd be happy to discuss the matter via email.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wildstar,
    PS: It's not only females who need to learn about appropriate dress for particular occasions. So do the males!

    ReplyDelete
  25. I like the idea of giving the woman her job back and making her dress up in a costume under which she could wear her head covering.

    A pig costume might be interesting but what about a Prophet Mohammed outfit?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I would also suggest that this is both an attempt at making a point (ie extortion in some books) as well as a frivolous waste of the legal system.

    In my experiences in courts, 30 years of, I have seen similar waste.

    Organisations like Disney employ people to provide to an image and this would be in the company guidelines and statutes. Simply put, if you do not fit the guidelines and profile required for that job, you do not get it. She did not apply for a back-office admnistrative job, that goes under different working codes. As pointed out in the item, visible tattoos are also prohibited and it is for that reason (and that reason only) that not fiting the profile she should not be employed.

    AOW asked the question about cases being thrown out of court as frivolous automatically getting a "plaintiff's cost" award - that does not happen automatically but most certainly can occur. When a case is thrown out of court, the wrongfully accussed's representative can ask for "court costs" and if not accepted can always file suit for court costs and legal fees "lost".

    In most countries it is when the case is thrown out of court via contempt that the judge may declare costs to be incurred.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  27. Blacksheep,

    how did you come to the conclusion that the person in this video is an African-American? I suggest you look again, look at it in full-screen, notice her voice and even her name.

    She is more than likely Malay or Indonesian in origin.

    FYI

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  28. Damien Charles,
    Thanks for addressing the legal question that I asked.

    Here in America, I'm not sure that there are such provisions. If they do exist, I've never heard of them.

    ReplyDelete
  29. AOW,

    As far as I am aware, most if not all of your States allow for a suit to recompense court costs for actions deemed inapropriate. I do know that New England and Maryland allows for the judge to order a hearing for cases that are thrown out. I do not know about the others.

    Watching the report again on your link (I have not read anything else on this particular case), if she filed only for damages for mental anguish due to being treated badly by other employees, if she had what the court considers viable evidence (ie proof) she may stand a chance based on that (assuming what she said in the interview was true).

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  30. sorry, please replace
    "recompense court costs "

    with

    "recompense legal costs".

    DC

    ReplyDelete
  31. AOW,

    I posted an O/T item about a recent and important landmark decision regarding euthenasia and the right to die over here in Britain. It was on the thread on Sam's Paul Ryan item further down. I made a comment and asked if you would consider making it a thread because I find it both interesting, something I am sure people here have strong views on (and differing) and I have some connections to the case in hand.

    It was cut (as was one other's reply) which I assume either that it was because it was O/T or perhaps Sam is taking it up?

    Could you check please.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  32. Blacksheep and others,

    just to clarify a point. The lady in question is actually Moroccan in origin. Considering I know Morocco very well, it shows that I assumed by her accent (not very Moroccan to be honest) that she was more likely Indonesian or Malay. Either way, African-American and a member of Malcom X's Black Panthers and their unique version of Islam she most definitely is not!

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  33. What about those of us infidels who have to comply with those islamic(dress code) demands to wear malay or islamic cultural long loose dress type of clothing in certain workplace on certain days or when out in public?
    What about us infidels who have to suffer so much mental anguish in their stifling islamic influenced environment?
    I agree with Damien. She looked like an Indonesian or Malaysian with Malay ethnic look. It looks like it is okay for islamic people to dhimmified us infidels but rich and poor moslems would cry victim every time things don't go their way in infidel land.Is this islamic woman making her hijab issue to extort money from Disney or tried to islamise Disney with her islamic demands? (many of the islamic women in malaysia or other eastern countries don't wear hijab though increasingly of them are flaunting their islamic hijab in public).
    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  34. WLIL,
    Hello! Haven't seen you here in a while.

    What about us infidels who have to suffer so much mental anguish in their stifling islamic influenced environment?

    Whom can we sue? I'm only half-kidding!

    ReplyDelete
  35. AOW,
    Hello! Yes, indeed. I did not post in your blog for quite some time.
    Anyway, I always look forward to reading your comments or replies, whenever I have the time, or whenever possible.
    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  36. WLILL,

    the reality is that those countries that do impose dress rules also suffer the consequences for it - ie less or no tourism, less international commerce and an unhappier population.

    Having said that there is also the other reality - it is in a maximum of a dozen countries that have dress codes and the rest do not care with perhaps a number more in rural areas ensuring that within their own community maintain it.

    Thus for me, those dozen hard-core countries suffer the consequences and unlike the west, do not really get migrants.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective