A Muslim woman is suing a Disney-owned restaurant for discrimination:
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.”
Hitch and 
Naved are discussing. 
abunoor is discussing. 
bingregory and 
Buzz, 
kevin, 
null, 
Tec15, 
Dan, and 4 others are discussing. 
Hitch 7:03 am on August 25, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
This isn’t really religious discrimination. If this stands we will see people showing up with Che, Anarchy Now, Jesus Loves You and other T-Shirts to work and insist on doing customer-interaction.
Naved 1:52 am on August 26, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hitch,
Your examples would likely have to prove that they are a legitimate interpretation of some religious injunction. Are Christians required to wear shirts that say Jesus Loves You?
Hitch 7:11 am on August 26, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
There is some real trickery with the point of “legitimate interpretation of some religious injunction”. But in any case, this is rather a question of rule neutrality, which I tried to point to, albeit too casually for sure. Employers are fine to have neutral rules and they cannot fire someone who cannot follow a neutral rule for religious reasons. But they are not required to keep an employee in any role if a neutral rule conflicts with religious exercise. For example a male Sikh hair-dress model cannot insist on a turban against an employer rule that no head-wear is allowed and claim discrimination even if the employer offered a compatible alternative job role that removes the conflict with the rule.
But yes, if it surfaces that the employer ever has allowed head-wear the story changes, but it really doesn’t require a legitimacy test.
In fact the court really virtually cannot judge on or for legitimacy tests because it goes against the Lemon test/establishment.
So yes, a christian group may decide that wearing a “Jesus Loves You” T-Shirt is required in their denomination. Or an anarchist group may declare itself a religion. The court won’t be in any good position to judge the legitimacy of that.