[net.legal] Disneyland assigns jobs by looks

76373777@sdcc3.UUCP (76373777) (10/26/84)

<</^\=/^\=/^\=@:)' munch, munch, gobble, crunch...

	At Disneyland, employees are assigned to jobs on the basis of
their appearance.  No kidding.  Redheads w/freckles work Tom Sawyer's
Rafts, blondes are ride attendants, dark-haired people work in food
service and janitorial.  This only applies to people the public sees,
of course, (programmers are hired for skills, not looks) but if you
just apply for an unskilled job there the only qualification which
will determine your assignment is your appearance.

	To deal with the patent dangers such a policy faces from both
Federal and State anti-discrimination statutes (California has a really
cool one called the Unruh Civil Rights Act), all Disney employees are
classed by WED as ``performers,'' which means it's okay to choose them on
such a subjective basis.  One not-well publicized threat of Disneyland
unions is the possibility of a court challenge to this.  After all, what
does appearance REALLY have to do with one's suitability as a ride-
operator or hamburger server?

hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (11/01/84)

>  After all, what
>does appearance REALLY have to do with one's suitability as a ride-
>operator or hamburger server?

1.   It is their right to determine the criteria for their entertainers.
2.   It adds to the atmosphere (huck fin, etc.)   Disney land differs from many
     other parks (Are you listening, Great America?) in this respect; it is not
     merely a collection of rides.  Even they, though, could use a few more
     ride attendants that are better at entertaining in the mean time.  ("Has
     anyone seen a blond haired, blue eyed girl, about age eighteen.  If so,
     I'd like to meet her"  from the operator of the raft ride with a long
     line.)
3.   At Great America last summer, I saw their "Evolution II" show.  White
     members of the "Supremes" black "Beatles," etc.  not so convincing.

rick

douglis@ucbvax.ARPA (Fred Douglis) (11/02/84)

In article <690@oliven.UUCP> hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) writes:
>
>1.   It is their right to determine the criteria for their entertainers.

I agree that it is Disneyland's right to set criteria for their *entertainers*,
but I disagree that someone selling popcorn is an entertainer.  I don't believe
that performers (Beatles impersonators, for example) are the same as random
employees, such as vendors and maintenance personnel.

I wonder if it ever will get to a courtroom over this?
-- 
                                    
				    Fred Douglis
			ucbvax!douglis  douglis@ucbrenoir.arpa

ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/03/84)

Actually, this has been ruled legal.  Consider a chineese restaurant
only wanting to hire oriental waiters...

mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (11/04/84)

One thing about Disney World of Florida is  interesting.
When Florida was negotiating with the Disney people, they
gave away the show.  Walt Disney Productions was successful
in obtaining near statehood, for the first 99 years.  It is
a sovereign all to its own.  They do their own policing,
and theoretically, taxation. However, no one lives there,
except Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse.

Mark Reina

dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (11/08/84)

The only things that I know of that are a bit funny about Disneyworld
are the Reedy Creek Improvement District (sp?) and the restriction on
advertising.  I didn't think the District was particularly different
from any similar water conservation or other utility district.  It can
issue tax exempt bonds backed by revenue and property taxes on the land
inside the district, which is most of Disneyworld.  They just arrange it
so there are only five people who reside on that land and who elect
themselves the governing body of the district.  Effectively Disney can
do a lot of the things such districts usually do with tax exempt
financing.  But if instaed of Disneyword, there were 10 or 50 or 500
landowners who wanted water conservagtion, sewage treatment, etc., they
would form such a district in all likelihood.  Why should Disneyworld be
penalized because it is a single land owner?

The advertising restriction adopted by the Florida state legislature is
much worse in my mind.  As I understand it, it is illegal in Florida to
advertise that you are X miles, or some other particualr distance, from
Disneyworld.  However, you can print a map in your ad and let people
figure it our for themselves.

						Donald
-- 
	+	Donald E. Eastlake, III
	ARPA:	dee@CCA-UNIX		usenet:	{decvax,linus}!cca!dee