Tuesday, November 23, 2010
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell'
* The following article talks about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that the country faces. It restricts the United States Army from discovering an applicant's sexual orientation. This article pertains to the Social Justice class because it is what we have talked about. It covers the topics of discrimination and the issues that this country faces when it comes to human rights issues. It is an important issue that this country faces and a lot of people like to avoid such subjects and don't really like talking about. A component to the policy is "don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue". This year, the district court judge ruled the law unconstitutional and didn't want people to obey the law. Thus, "don't ask, don't tell" is still in effect, the Supreme Court refused to overturn it. President Obama campaigned for people to serve the military openly. In the class, we talked about subjects such as human rights, the rights of women, discrimination against certain groups as well as the discrimination against gays. As a result, this article relates to the topics.
Prospects for Congress to authorize repeal of the don’t ask, don’t tell” policy face new uncertainties as time runs out for the Senate to act and strong objections remain among Republicans and the most senior ranks of the military.
The murky picture on Capitol Hill comes even as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said for the first time that he would like to see the Senate vote to authorize the repeal before the end of the year, and a not-yet-released Pentagon survey of active-duty forces and their families shows that the majority do not care if gay men and women serve openly, which the policy forbids.
The new commandant of the Marine Corps does care, and he was swiftly rebuked after making unusual comments about troops’ sleeping arrangements over the weekend.
In the meantime, a federal appeals court in California is considering whether the ban is constitutional.
The possibility that Congress will not act this year has further aggravated tensions between gay rights groups and President Obama, who campaigned on a promise to allow gay men and women to serve openly.
There are two main forces working against repeal on Capitol Hill.
One is the simple matter of the Congressional calendar. There will be very little time in the lame-duck session that begins next week for the Senate to vote to authorize the repeal of the policy and reconcile its measure with a version passed by the House.
The other obstacle is in the concerns of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee. Although Mr. McCain has said in the past that he would consider authorizing a repeal of the law once the Pentagon review was complete, he faced a challenge from the right in his recent re-election fight and campaigned, in part, on a promise to preserve the 17-year-old law that requires service members to keep their sexual orientation secret. Mr. McCain, 74, a naval aviator who was shot down and imprisoned in Hanoi in the Vietnam War, has continued to press against repeal.
Mr. McCain and other Senate Republicans blocked consideration of a defense bill in September that included a provision allowing repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and in recent days he has been in negotiations with Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on whether the “don’t ask, don’t tell” provision should be stripped from the bill entirely.
The White House communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, issued a statement saying the administration opposed stripping the provision from the annual military policy bill and remained committed to ending the ban.
Gay rights groups have said that if that occurs, repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would be difficult if not impossible this year and even more unlikely in 2011, when Republicans will be in control of the House.
The Pentagon is due to make public a report of how to carry out a repeal — including the survey of its active-duty forces — on Dec. 1, which could create momentum for repealing the ban. But the Senate may run out of time, given urgent issues including the expiring Bush-era tax cuts and a spending measure to keep the federal government running.
The chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force have all expressed some reluctance about ending the ban, as has the former commandant of the Marine Corps, but the comments of the current commandant, Gen. James F. Amos, are the most vivid to date.
In comments to reporters in California this weekend, General Amos said that ending the ban in the middle of two wars would involve “risk” for Marines, who, unlike other service members who generally have private quarters, share rooms to promote unity. “There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we’re talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers,” said General Amos, 63. “I don’t know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that’s what we’re looking at. It’s unit cohesion, it’s combat effectiveness.”
General Amos and the other armed service chiefs are reviewing a draft of the Pentagon survey.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen effectively rebuked General Amos when he told reporters in Melbourne, Australia, “I was surprised by what he said and surprised he said it publicly.” Admiral Mullen, who supports repeal, also called General Amos on Sunday night to speak directly with him about the comments, said General Amos’s spokesman, Maj. Joseph M. Plenzler. Major Plenzler said he did not know the tone of the call or specifics about the conversation.
Mr. Gates, in his own comments to reporters en route to security and diplomatic talks in Australia, said, “I would like to see the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ but I’m not sure what the prospects are and we’ll just have to see.”
On Capitol Hill, Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said Mr. Reid remained committed to the repeal.
“He, of course, can’t do it alone,” Mr. Manley said. “The senator needs Republicans to at least agree to have a debate on this issue, a debate he firmly believes the Senate should have.”
Gay rights groups said that they would continue to pressure Mr. Obama to push the Senate to act. “Obama’s central promise to the gay community was to get this law repealed,” said Richard Socarides, who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay issues. “If he can’t deliver on this, one way or another, through repeal or court action or executive order, all bets are off.”
Mr. McCain and Mr. Levin did not provide any details about their discussions of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the defense bill.
Tara Andringa, a spokeswoman for Mr. Levin, said in a statement on Monday that “Senator Levin has been discussing with the Defense Department when the report relating to the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, due to the secretary of defense on Dec. 1, will be made available to Congress and the public, and he has also been discussing with Senator McCain how to proceed.”
Most Democrats support the repeal and at least one Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, already voted in favor of authorizing the repeal in committee proceedings.
Mr. Reid could try to bring the defense bill to the floor under an open amendment process, a move that Republicans presumably would not block but that would mean committing a large block of time to debate. In that case, opponents of repeal would not be able to pass an amendment stripping it out of the bill.
Prospects for Congress to authorize repeal of the don’t ask, don’t tell” policy face new uncertainties as time runs out for the Senate to act and strong objections remain among Republicans and the most senior ranks of the military.
The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation.
The new commandant of the Marine Corps does care, and he was swiftly rebuked after making unusual comments about troops’ sleeping arrangements over the weekend.
In the meantime, a federal appeals court in California is considering whether the ban is constitutional.
The possibility that Congress will not act this year has further aggravated tensions between gay rights groups and President Obama, who campaigned on a promise to allow gay men and women to serve openly.
There are two main forces working against repeal on Capitol Hill.
One is the simple matter of the Congressional calendar. There will be very little time in the lame-duck session that begins next week for the Senate to vote to authorize the repeal of the policy and reconcile its measure with a version passed by the House.
The other obstacle is in the concerns of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee. Although Mr. McCain has said in the past that he would consider authorizing a repeal of the law once the Pentagon review was complete, he faced a challenge from the right in his recent re-election fight and campaigned, in part, on a promise to preserve the 17-year-old law that requires service members to keep their sexual orientation secret. Mr. McCain, 74, a naval aviator who was shot down and imprisoned in Hanoi in the Vietnam War, has continued to press against repeal.
Mr. McCain and other Senate Republicans blocked consideration of a defense bill in September that included a provision allowing repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and in recent days he has been in negotiations with Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on whether the “don’t ask, don’t tell” provision should be stripped from the bill entirely.
The White House communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, issued a statement saying the administration opposed stripping the provision from the annual military policy bill and remained committed to ending the ban.
Gay rights groups have said that if that occurs, repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would be difficult if not impossible this year and even more unlikely in 2011, when Republicans will be in control of the House.
The Pentagon is due to make public a report of how to carry out a repeal — including the survey of its active-duty forces — on Dec. 1, which could create momentum for repealing the ban. But the Senate may run out of time, given urgent issues including the expiring Bush-era tax cuts and a spending measure to keep the federal government running.
The chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force have all expressed some reluctance about ending the ban, as has the former commandant of the Marine Corps, but the comments of the current commandant, Gen. James F. Amos, are the most vivid to date.
In comments to reporters in California this weekend, General Amos said that ending the ban in the middle of two wars would involve “risk” for Marines, who, unlike other service members who generally have private quarters, share rooms to promote unity. “There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we’re talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers,” said General Amos, 63. “I don’t know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that’s what we’re looking at. It’s unit cohesion, it’s combat effectiveness.”
General Amos and the other armed service chiefs are reviewing a draft of the Pentagon survey.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen effectively rebuked General Amos when he told reporters in Melbourne, Australia, “I was surprised by what he said and surprised he said it publicly.” Admiral Mullen, who supports repeal, also called General Amos on Sunday night to speak directly with him about the comments, said General Amos’s spokesman, Maj. Joseph M. Plenzler. Major Plenzler said he did not know the tone of the call or specifics about the conversation.
Mr. Gates, in his own comments to reporters en route to security and diplomatic talks in Australia, said, “I would like to see the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ but I’m not sure what the prospects are and we’ll just have to see.”
On Capitol Hill, Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said Mr. Reid remained committed to the repeal.
“He, of course, can’t do it alone,” Mr. Manley said. “The senator needs Republicans to at least agree to have a debate on this issue, a debate he firmly believes the Senate should have.”
Gay rights groups said that they would continue to pressure Mr. Obama to push the Senate to act. “Obama’s central promise to the gay community was to get this law repealed,” said Richard Socarides, who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay issues. “If he can’t deliver on this, one way or another, through repeal or court action or executive order, all bets are off.”
Mr. McCain and Mr. Levin did not provide any details about their discussions of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the defense bill.
Tara Andringa, a spokeswoman for Mr. Levin, said in a statement on Monday that “Senator Levin has been discussing with the Defense Department when the report relating to the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, due to the secretary of defense on Dec. 1, will be made available to Congress and the public, and he has also been discussing with Senator McCain how to proceed.”
Most Democrats support the repeal and at least one Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, already voted in favor of authorizing the repeal in committee proceedings.
Mr. Reid could try to bring the defense bill to the floor under an open amendment process, a move that Republicans presumably would not block but that would mean committing a large block of time to debate. In that case, opponents of repeal would not be able to pass an amendment stripping it out of the bill.
Muslims Report Rising Discrimination at Work
*The following article is about Muslims in the United States and the discrimination and inequality that they go through everyday since September 11th. It's about a man that stopped working for Disney productions because they didn't accept the fact that he was wearing a head scarf as well as other places that have refused employment to Muslim people because it didn't comply with the employer's rules and policies. Such complains have increased over the years. As a result, people are being called names such as"terrorists" and "Osama". This article pertains to the Social Justice class because we have talked about discrimination against certain groups such as Muslims and this article highlights infamous cases that we have seen play out in the news. Cases such as the Islamic center situation and the Disney situation.
At a time of growing tensions involving Muslims in the United States, a record number of Muslim workers are complaining of employment discrimination, from co-workers calling them “terrorist” or “Osama” to employers barring them from wearing head scarves or taking prayer breaks.
Such complaints were increasing even before frictions erupted over the planned Islamic center in Lower Manhattan, with Muslim workers filing a record 803 such claims in the year ended Sept. 30, 2009. That was up 20 percent from the previous year and up nearly 60 percent from 2005, according to federal data.
The number of complaints filed since then will not be announced until January, but Islamic groups say they have received a surge in complaints recently, suggesting that 2010’s figure will set another record.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found enough merit in some of the complaints that it has filed several prominent lawsuits on behalf of Muslim workers.
Last month, the commission sued JBS Swift, a meatpacking company, on behalf of 160 Somali immigrants, saying supervisors and workers had cursed them for being Muslim; thrown blood, meat and bones at them; and interrupted their prayer breaks.
On Sept. 1, the commission filed a case against Abercrombie & Fitch, the fashionable clothing retailer, accusing it of discrimination for refusing to hire an 18-year-old Muslim because she was wearing a head scarf.
And in June, the agency sued a Four Points by Sheraton hotel in Phoenix, asserting that its management had illegally permitted a hostile work environment in which workers called an Iraqi immigrant a “camel jockey,” mocked him with Arab ululations and taunted him over news items about captured terrorists. (The hotel’s manager said many of the claims were untrue.)
“There’s a level of hatred and animosity that is shocking,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney of the E.E.O.C.’s Phoenix office. “I’ve been doing this for 31 years, and I’ve never seen such antipathy toward Muslim workers.”
Although Muslims make up less than 2 percent of the United States population, they accounted for about one-quarter of the 3,386 religious discrimination claims filed with the E.E.O.C. last year. Complaints filed by Jews rose slightly in fiscal 2009, while complaints filed by Catholics, Protestants, Sikhs and Seventh-day Adventists declined. Claims of race, sex and age discrimination also fell.
The rising number of complaints by Muslims, which exceeds even the amount filed in the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, comes as tensions rise between Muslim Americans and those of other faiths.
Polls have shown that many Americans feel a growing wariness toward Muslims after the 9/11 attacks and after years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mosques and Islamic community centers in the United States — most prominently one proposed near ground zero in Manhattan — have faced substantial opposition. And a Florida pastor received national attention this month for threatening to burn the Koran on Sept. 11.
“We can go back in history and find other times when there were hot emotional and political tensions over religion,” said Michael J. Zimmer, co-author of several books on employment discrimination and a law professor at Loyola University in Chicago. “Right now, there is a lot of heat as to the Muslims.”
Mohammad Kaleemuddin, a Pakistani immigrant who drove trucks for the American war effort in Iraq for three years, said that while he was working for a construction company in Houston, his supervisor and several co-workers called him “Osama,” “al Qaeda,” “Taliban,” and “terrorist.”
“It was very rough,” said Mr. Kaleemuddin, who was fired after protesting to management about the ethnic slurs. “It brought a bit of terror in my chest. I’d wonder, ‘Why are they doing this? I’ve always been nice to them.’ ”
After he filed a complaint, the E.E.O.C. sued the company he worked for, Pace Services. The company agreed last April to pay him $61,250 to settle the case.
Experts on religion and employment discrimination say many factors are behind this surge in discrimination claims.
“In America right now, there are intense concerns about many issues — immigration, the faltering economy, the interminable wars” and the erroneous belief, held by many Americans, that the first nonwhite president is Muslim, said Akbar Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at American University.
“In all of these, there’s one link, Islam. Islam is the lightning rod. Whenever there is a great distrust or antipathy, it spills beyond religion into public life,” the professor said.
Professor Ahmed said that Muslims in the United States were generally reluctant to stick their necks out and complain about discrimination, partly in the belief that attitudes toward them will gradually improve. But he said that growing intolerance has prompted more Muslims to stand up for their rights and file E.E.O.C. complaints.
Workers have complained of discrimination even in regions known for their diversity.
Page 2 of 2) Halla Banafa filed a claim with the commission after she was turned down at age 18 for a job stocking merchandise at an Abercrombie Kids store in Milpitas, Calif., in Silicon Valley. According to the E.E.O.C., the manager made a note of “not Abercrombie look” on the interview form.
"I never imagined anyone in the Bay Area would reject me because of my head scarf,” Ms. Banafa said.
At a time of growing tensions involving Muslims in the United States, a record number of Muslim workers are complaining of employment discrimination, from co-workers calling them “terrorist” or “Osama” to employers barring them from wearing head scarves or taking prayer breaks.
J. Emilio Flores for The New York Times
Imane Boudlal stopped working at a Disney cafe until a dispute over her head scarf is resolved. Disney says it clashes with the cafe’s early-1900s theme.
The number of complaints filed since then will not be announced until January, but Islamic groups say they have received a surge in complaints recently, suggesting that 2010’s figure will set another record.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found enough merit in some of the complaints that it has filed several prominent lawsuits on behalf of Muslim workers.
Last month, the commission sued JBS Swift, a meatpacking company, on behalf of 160 Somali immigrants, saying supervisors and workers had cursed them for being Muslim; thrown blood, meat and bones at them; and interrupted their prayer breaks.
On Sept. 1, the commission filed a case against Abercrombie & Fitch, the fashionable clothing retailer, accusing it of discrimination for refusing to hire an 18-year-old Muslim because she was wearing a head scarf.
And in June, the agency sued a Four Points by Sheraton hotel in Phoenix, asserting that its management had illegally permitted a hostile work environment in which workers called an Iraqi immigrant a “camel jockey,” mocked him with Arab ululations and taunted him over news items about captured terrorists. (The hotel’s manager said many of the claims were untrue.)
“There’s a level of hatred and animosity that is shocking,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney of the E.E.O.C.’s Phoenix office. “I’ve been doing this for 31 years, and I’ve never seen such antipathy toward Muslim workers.”
Although Muslims make up less than 2 percent of the United States population, they accounted for about one-quarter of the 3,386 religious discrimination claims filed with the E.E.O.C. last year. Complaints filed by Jews rose slightly in fiscal 2009, while complaints filed by Catholics, Protestants, Sikhs and Seventh-day Adventists declined. Claims of race, sex and age discrimination also fell.
The rising number of complaints by Muslims, which exceeds even the amount filed in the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, comes as tensions rise between Muslim Americans and those of other faiths.
Polls have shown that many Americans feel a growing wariness toward Muslims after the 9/11 attacks and after years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mosques and Islamic community centers in the United States — most prominently one proposed near ground zero in Manhattan — have faced substantial opposition. And a Florida pastor received national attention this month for threatening to burn the Koran on Sept. 11.
“We can go back in history and find other times when there were hot emotional and political tensions over religion,” said Michael J. Zimmer, co-author of several books on employment discrimination and a law professor at Loyola University in Chicago. “Right now, there is a lot of heat as to the Muslims.”
Mohammad Kaleemuddin, a Pakistani immigrant who drove trucks for the American war effort in Iraq for three years, said that while he was working for a construction company in Houston, his supervisor and several co-workers called him “Osama,” “al Qaeda,” “Taliban,” and “terrorist.”
“It was very rough,” said Mr. Kaleemuddin, who was fired after protesting to management about the ethnic slurs. “It brought a bit of terror in my chest. I’d wonder, ‘Why are they doing this? I’ve always been nice to them.’ ”
After he filed a complaint, the E.E.O.C. sued the company he worked for, Pace Services. The company agreed last April to pay him $61,250 to settle the case.
Experts on religion and employment discrimination say many factors are behind this surge in discrimination claims.
“In America right now, there are intense concerns about many issues — immigration, the faltering economy, the interminable wars” and the erroneous belief, held by many Americans, that the first nonwhite president is Muslim, said Akbar Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at American University.
“In all of these, there’s one link, Islam. Islam is the lightning rod. Whenever there is a great distrust or antipathy, it spills beyond religion into public life,” the professor said.
Professor Ahmed said that Muslims in the United States were generally reluctant to stick their necks out and complain about discrimination, partly in the belief that attitudes toward them will gradually improve. But he said that growing intolerance has prompted more Muslims to stand up for their rights and file E.E.O.C. complaints.
Workers have complained of discrimination even in regions known for their diversity.
Page 2 of 2) Halla Banafa filed a claim with the commission after she was turned down at age 18 for a job stocking merchandise at an Abercrombie Kids store in Milpitas, Calif., in Silicon Valley. According to the E.E.O.C., the manager made a note of “not Abercrombie look” on the interview form.
"I never imagined anyone in the Bay Area would reject me because of my head scarf,” Ms. Banafa said.
Federal law requires employers to accommodate head scarves, also called hijabs, as well as prayer breaks and other practices based on sincere religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
“Abercrombie just decided they’re not going to comply with the law requiring religious accommodation,” said William R. Tamayo, regional attorney of the commission’s San Francisco office. “Their intolerance is off the charts.” Last year, the commission also sued Abercrombie for refusing to hire a 17-year-old wearing a hijab at a store in Tulsa, Okla.
Ronald A. Robins Jr., Abercrombie’s general counsel, said the company disputed both claims, adding that the retailer “makes every reasonable attempt to accommodate the religious practices of associates and applicants, including, when appropriate, allowing associates to wear a hijab.”
In 2004, Abercrombie agreed to pay $40 million to settle an E.E.O.C. lawsuit charging it with racial bias against Asian, black and Hispanic employees, many of whom said they had been steered to low-visibility, back-of-the-store jobs.
At Swift, the meatpacker, the charge of discrimination dates back to 2008, when Somali workers complained that the restroom had profanity-laced anti-Muslim graffiti, that their prayer breaks were often interrupted and that the company would not move their meal breaks to right after sundown during the month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast during the day. After Muslim employees staged a walkout, the company fired all the protesters, the commission said.
Chandler Keys, a Swift spokesman, declined to discuss the lawsuit, but said that since 2008, the company has had no similar incidents. “We’ve worked closely and diligently with the East African community and other groups to avoid a recurrence of such problems,” he said.
Sometimes sharp disputes arise over whether employers have done enough to accommodate Muslim employees.
Imane Boudlal, a 26-year-old from Casablanca, Morocco, had worked for two years as a hostess at the Storytellers Cafe at Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., when she decided she would begin wearing her hijab at work during Ramadan last month. Ms. Boudlal said her supervisors told her that if she insisted on wearing the scarf, she could work either in back or at a telephone job. She refused and has not worked while the dispute continues.
Disney officials said her head scarf clashed with the restaurant’s early-1900s theme, and they proposed a period hat with some scarf that would fall over her ears. Ms. Boudlal rejected that as un-Muslim. “They wanted to hide the fact that I looked Muslim,” she said.
Michael Griffin, a Disney spokesman, said the company’s “cast members” agree to comply with its appearance guidelines. “When cast members request exceptions to our policies for religious reasons, we strive to make accommodations,” he said, adding that Disney has accommodated more than 200 such requests since 2007.
“Abercrombie just decided they’re not going to comply with the law requiring religious accommodation,” said William R. Tamayo, regional attorney of the commission’s San Francisco office. “Their intolerance is off the charts.” Last year, the commission also sued Abercrombie for refusing to hire a 17-year-old wearing a hijab at a store in Tulsa, Okla.
Ronald A. Robins Jr., Abercrombie’s general counsel, said the company disputed both claims, adding that the retailer “makes every reasonable attempt to accommodate the religious practices of associates and applicants, including, when appropriate, allowing associates to wear a hijab.”
In 2004, Abercrombie agreed to pay $40 million to settle an E.E.O.C. lawsuit charging it with racial bias against Asian, black and Hispanic employees, many of whom said they had been steered to low-visibility, back-of-the-store jobs.
At Swift, the meatpacker, the charge of discrimination dates back to 2008, when Somali workers complained that the restroom had profanity-laced anti-Muslim graffiti, that their prayer breaks were often interrupted and that the company would not move their meal breaks to right after sundown during the month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast during the day. After Muslim employees staged a walkout, the company fired all the protesters, the commission said.
Chandler Keys, a Swift spokesman, declined to discuss the lawsuit, but said that since 2008, the company has had no similar incidents. “We’ve worked closely and diligently with the East African community and other groups to avoid a recurrence of such problems,” he said.
Sometimes sharp disputes arise over whether employers have done enough to accommodate Muslim employees.
Imane Boudlal, a 26-year-old from Casablanca, Morocco, had worked for two years as a hostess at the Storytellers Cafe at Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., when she decided she would begin wearing her hijab at work during Ramadan last month. Ms. Boudlal said her supervisors told her that if she insisted on wearing the scarf, she could work either in back or at a telephone job. She refused and has not worked while the dispute continues.
Disney officials said her head scarf clashed with the restaurant’s early-1900s theme, and they proposed a period hat with some scarf that would fall over her ears. Ms. Boudlal rejected that as un-Muslim. “They wanted to hide the fact that I looked Muslim,” she said.
Michael Griffin, a Disney spokesman, said the company’s “cast members” agree to comply with its appearance guidelines. “When cast members request exceptions to our policies for religious reasons, we strive to make accommodations,” he said, adding that Disney has accommodated more than 200 such requests since 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)