yet another lawsuit

[mickclub1955]

Man Claims Disney Discriminated Against Him
Tuesday, June 17, 2008



TAMPA, Fla. — A University of South Florida student says Disney officials told him he didn't fit the "Disney look" when he applied for a job.

Now, 24-year-old Sukhbir Channa is suing Disney World. He claims the company discriminated against him because of his turban and uncut hair, which his Sikh religion requires.

He was applying to be a trumpet player during the 2006 holiday season.

A Disney spokeswoman says they have no record of Channa applying for the job then and that the company does not discriminate against anyone.

The suit was filed in Tampa on Monday where the university is located and where the hiring process took place. He's seeking $1 million in punitive damages.

[PirateLover]

$1 million? Really. People are so out of hand these days. I doubt this will get very far but who knows.

[KineGirl]

oh please

[AnnetteFan]

I actually believe him. Disney is very serious about their Disney Look and it's something they cover as soon as you apply. It's kind of touchy when it comes down to religion, Muslim women can't wear headscarves unless they take a backstage position, several Muslim women work in costuming since it doesn't involve guest interaction and they can wear their scarf. My question is if they offered him a backstage role or nothing at all. I can totally see where he's coming from but 1 million is completly outrageous.

[CaptainJessicaSparrow]

Well, as Ron points out - it's called Casting for a reason. We are being Cast in a role, therefore, they have every right to tell us what you can and can't wear.

If they offered him a job, and he turned it down, then they didn't discriminate against him.

[Jeff G]

He's suing for $1million, interesting. If he had been hired by WDW it would have taken him almost 33 years to make that much money(assuming he made $30k/yr). If he wins the suit it's a good thing he wasn't hired.

[thrillme]

It's ridiculous. Stuff like this ought to be screened out of the court system instead of wasting taxpayer money on it. (Somehow I DOUBT he's paying for his lawyer totally out of his own pocket).

People have got to understand that "looks" are part of the game if you're playing a roll. Exactly the reason no one has ever asked Arnold Swartzenegger to play Polly Anna...it would just not be right. There are plenty of other areas he could work.

[RBrooksC]

It is called Tort law and that is a big problem in the US these days. Tort Lawyers, which many members of Congress are, go after big companies or companies with deep pockets and try to hit them for a lot of money since they get a percentage. Every time there is a movement to reform Tort law, it is block by Congress because they know when their rear ends kicked out of their elected seat, they are going to back to practicing law and they don't want their pay day to end.

[Ian]

I'm sorry, but having seen some of the people they've hired at WDW lately (I've seen more than one that looked like a convicted felon), I find it very hard to believe that they turn down anyone based on appearance.

[AnnetteFan]

I'm a little surprised that no one sees a problem with not hiring someone because of something they're required to wear for religious reasons. If it was just someone mad because Disney told him he couldn't have a facial piercing it would be completly different. I honestly think Disney should loosen their policy and allow women to wear headscarves in onstage roles and that sort of thing.

[blabbermouth]

I don't really see how looks have THAT much to do with being a trumpet player, even for disney. It's not like he wanted to be snow white. But in this case he probably just wasn't a good enough musician, which is a perfectly decent reason not to hire someone.

[SurferStitch]

I think he should get over himself, and realize that there may be some positions he just isn't going to get if he doesn't make concessions of his own.

Religion or not, he has to realize that his appearance WILL affect his potential for hire at different places, not just WDW. If I want to have a cross on my desk, or wear one, and it offends someone, they have the right to make a stink about it, and I may even have to put it away so they don't have to look at it if my boss says so (just an example). So, why can't it be the same way for other religions and their beliefs? Why can't the applicant be told to change his appearance to be considered for hire? We see in the news that one courthouse had to remove the 10 Commandments because someone was offended, or a cross had to be removed here, or a statue of Jesus there, AND IT'S DONE!! BUT, when someone of a "minority" religion (i.e. - not the majority) doesn't want to change, then we bend over backwards to comply. It's not right, and I'm tired of it.

If Disney did turn him away, I have no problem with it. Many employers state right in their policy that they can terminate an employee for any reason, so why can't they turn an applicant down for any reason?

CM's are supposed to have a predetermined look, and if he doesn't fit a front line CM, then so be it. Get over it, and move on. I'm so sick of these ridiculous lawsuits.

Whew! I feel better now.

[Stickey]

Here we go again, another deadbeat is seeking to extort cash from the big, bad, Disney. This is yet another example of the urgent need for tort reform.

A company must maintain the right to set standards for employees who interact with the public. Religion is a flimsy excuse. What happens if a chef's religion does not allow him/her to wash his/her hands? Should a company be required to allow these beliefs to be practiced on the job?

[bruin1344]

i hope this idiot loses the lawsuit and has to pay a bunch of legal fees

[AnnetteFan]

I don't think a cross or the Ten Commandments are a very good comparison here to be honest. The Christian religion doesn't require you to wear a cross or display a cross on your desk, that's a choice. It's different with headscarves and turbans. Disney has been willing to allow females to wear skirts instead of pants for certain costumes that would normally require pants if it's for religious reasons so I don't see how they would be willing to make an exception for that but not other things.

[Goofster]

Here we go again, another deadbeat is seeking to extort cash from the big, bad, Disney. This is yet another example of the urgent need for tort reform.

Disclaimer - I haven't read the complaint. But, more than likely, this isn't a tort action. It's an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion and national origin. This lawsuit is the result of our ever growing Federal government.

For religious practices, an employer is obligated to reasonably accomodate the employee unless the accomdoation imposes an undue hardship. Here, if the plaintiff otherwise qualified for a position, Disney could employ him in a behind-the-scenes role and (most likely) would comply with Title VII. As far as I know, there is no obligation for an employer, particularly Disney, that requires uniformity among its front-line employees, to accomadate a particular employee's religious preferences that overwhemingly conflict (long hair, etc.)

--A Sikh employee claimed a religious requirement to wear a turban at all times. The company offered him six alternative jobs (two of which had higher pay), which he refused. He was fired. The court found no Title VII religious discrimination. The court ruled that an employee is not entitled to the accommodation of his choice, just to a reasonable accommodation. Bindi v. UAL Corp. (N.D. Ill., 2002).--

[AHOTE]

If anyone really wants to "look" into this whole thing, do a web search. I got almost 9000 hits searching on just his name. To say the least it's captured a lot of attention on both sides of the issue. It will be interesting to see the out come.

[CaptainJessicaSparrow]

I'm glad someone else here knows basic civil law and HR.

Besides, Disney is a company that is allowed to use exceptions called bona fide occupational qualification and business necessity.

They can show that while they are not discriminating against his religion, they cannot give him the position he applied for (trumpter) based on his appearance. The band members all wear the same outfit, hats included. He cannot wear a hat due to his turban. He can have facial hair, it just has to be maintained to the standards set by the company.

Also, there is something a lot of people are overlooking. Disney has no record of him applying - which means, he most likely didn't. They are required to document every applicant and keep those records because of instances such as this. Ron was telling about this in class, and that they keeps records for years.

Also, he wasn't discriminated against because while he didn't qualify for the job he applied for, he was most likely offered backstage roles. If they intended to hire him for a different position and HE declined, then it's not discrimination.

As I said before, this is why Disney also calls it Casting. To be cast in a role, not given a job. That allows them to dictate how they want the appearance of their Cast to look. You really won't see a white person who is Mulan. If I go into work with green eye shadow, they will tell me to wash it off. If I colored the tips of my hair a different color (noticeably), they would tell me to change it back. It's all part of the show and every CM is in it, therefore we all must conform to the standards.

Otherwise, my hair would be Jessica Rabbit red again.

[disneygirlie11]

I don't remember where, but when I first read about this I know that article stated that he had been previously employed by Disney. It said he was in a parade(I can't remember which, I think the Christmas one.) and the hat covered his turban, so he was allowed to wear it. I'll try to find the article to post it.

[disneygirlie11]

Here is that article:



A former University of South Florida student has sued Walt Disney World, claiming he was discriminated against because his religion prevents him from conforming to the Disney dress code.

Miami Attorney Matt Sarelson filed the lawsuit in Hillsborough County Circuit Court on behalf of Sukhbir Channa. Channa, 24, is a practicing Sikh who wears a turban, a beard and keeps his hair long in accordance with his religious beliefs.

In his suit, Channa says he was hired in October 2005 as a seasonal college musician, which requires parade and atmospheric performances. At the time, he was a student University of South Florida.

In his parade performances, Channa says he wore a toy soldier hat to cover his head. In the atmospheric performances, he was initially allowed to wear a red turban in place of the red beret the other musicians wore. However, even after rehearsing for both jobs, the lawsuit claims Channa was removed from the atmospheric position because he lacked the "Disney look."

According to the suit, Channa complained to human resources and was told he was never hired for the atmospheric position and no corrective action was ever taken. The suit also claims he was singled out to perform menial tasks for his supervisor.

Channa was terminated in early 2006 for not having the "Disney look," the suit says, and when he applied to be rehired October 2006, he was denied for the same reason. According to the suit, all of Channa's former co-workers who wanted to be rehired were.

The suit alleges that Disney is violating the Florida Civil Rights Act, and requests damages of at least $1 million and that the court enjoin Disney from discriminating against Sikh employees and prospective employees.

A Disney spokeswoman said the company is reviewing the lawsuit.