According to plaintiff, Imane Boudlal, Disney did not approve of her wearing of a hijab, an important aspect of the Muslim faith.
After working in Disney’s Storyteller Hotel restaurant for over 2 years, she approached her supervisors to seek their permission to wear her hijab to work.
Boudlal was given permission to wear a headscarf, but only one designed and approved by Disney. Eventually fitted with a scarf that encompassed the look and feel of Disneyland, Boudlal was not provided with a date as to when she could begin wearing the customized scarf. She was also told, according to the report, that she would not be allowed to wear her own hijab over the interim.
With the onset of Ramadan, and in the absence of further word from Disney, Boudlal went ahead and wore her hijab to her job.
In her California labor lawsuit, Boudlal said that in August 2010, when she began wearing her hijab for work, she alleges to have been told by Disney to either remove the hijab, or work “backstage” where she would not be seen by patrons. On 7 separate occasions Boudlal was allegedly sent home without pay for wearing her hijab to work.
Disney’s eventual solution was to offer Boudlal a substitute headdress that Boudlal found unacceptable. In an interview with KTLA Los Angeles, Boudlal is reported to have said: “The hat makes a joke of me and my religion, and draws even more attention to me. It’s unacceptable. They don’t want me to look Muslim.” Boudlal was soon suspended from her job.
Boudlal filed a complaint with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2010 and finally received a notice of her right to sue in August 2012.
A new California labor law “AB 1964” went into affect in January 2013, offering more protection against such discrimination allegedly suffered by Boudlal. AB 1964 clarifies that religious dress and grooming practices are covered by existing and updated protections against religious discrimination.
According to the new California labor law specifically notes that segregating an employee is not interpreted as a reasonable accommodation.
If you are being discriminated against by your employer, please give my office, The Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman a call today at (877) 449-8898 for a free consultation.
Quick Navigation
Free Consultation
"*" indicates required fields
Undisclosed
Settlement
TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.
TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.
Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.
TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.
TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.
Class-wide settlement in wage and hour independent contractor misclassification class action on behalf of approximately 1,800 valet employees. Final approval granted.
Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.
$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.
One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.
Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.
Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.
With so many law firms in Southern California and throughout the United States, why choose the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman?
Todd Friedman has been named a 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 Super Lawyer, a distinction of professional achievement and peer recognition.
Speak directly with attorney Todd Friedman about your case. Todd will evaluate your situation and provide prompt and straightforward feedback, saving you time and alleviating uncertainty.
Our firm has earned an A+ Rating from the Better Business Bureau, and has been accredited since 2010.
We are strong advocates for our clients and have the resources necessary to take on powerful opponents and win.
Contact Us
and start fighting back
We offer Free Initial Consultations.
If you have experienced a violation of your rights, call us at 323-690-1688 or fill out the form to the right →
Not ready to commit yet? Check out our Testimonials page and see what others have said about their experience working with us!
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site, including collecting and providing that information to third party vendors to improve our experience, and for marketing purposes. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.