In case you haven’t heard, Imane Boudlal, a 26-year-old Disneyland restaurant employee has filed a complaint against Disney for religious discrimination. {LA Times}

The problem stems from the fact that Boudlal wants to wear a hijab – a scarf covering the hair and neck that some Muslim women choose to wear, while working. When hired, Boudlal did not wear the hijab, but later made the decision to wear it.

Disneyland, which has a long history of strict dress codes for employees, often called “cast members,” has offered Boudlal a position “backstage,” where costumes and uniforms aren’t as restrictive, and later a costume which had been modified to be more conservative. The costume included a higher neckline shirt, and a hat to cover her hair.

Disney spokeswoman Suzi Brown explains:

“We met with Ms. Boudlal on Saturday and presented her with several options. She asked that the costume be altered. Those alterations were made and a modified costume was presented to her that meets our costuming guidelines and which we believe provides an accommodation of her religious beliefs. We also provided four different roles that she could transition to that would allow her to wear her own hijab. She has twice chosen to reject all of the options that we’ve presented.” {LA Weekly}

Boudal responded that “the hat makes a joke of me and my religion, and draws even more attention to me. Itâ€s unacceptable. They donâ€t want me to look Muslim. They just donâ€t want the head covering to look like a hijab.” {Styleite}

Perhaps they don’t, but when is the last time an on the clock Disney employee “looked” Jewish (perhaps through wearing a yarmulke) or “looked” Sikh (perhaps through wearing a turban) when it wasn’t part of the uniform? Considering the fact that publicly facing Disney theme park workers often have to wear uniforms that fit into a certain theme, and it’s a clear condition of employment, we’ll give this one to Disney.

Don’t get us wrong, we’re all for Boudlal’s right to wear the hijab in her personal life and day to day activities off the job, but Disney has clearly tried to accommodate her preferences while keeping the theme of their restaurant consistent. That theme doesn’t include the type of head covering that Boudlal would like to wear, but that doesn’t make it discriminatory or offensive.

As a matter of style, is the hat silly looking? Sure, but so are many of the other uniforms employees are expected to wear. Employees who may be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or Buddhist, but for all intents and purposes are simply seen as Disney employees by the millions of guests who visit each year.

While he defends the practice of using photos as part of store hiring decisions, Dov Charney insists that American Apparel isn’t checking out anything more than they should (personal style and presentation) when it comes to photo submissions. And you know – he’s believable, even if we don’t agree with the practice 100%.

Nearly all jobs – particularly retail, have uniforms or appearance standards. And while demeanor, experience and other qualities might be bigger concerns if you were responsible for hiring someone, the fact is that style matters. That’s not to say that the policy isn’t extremely superficial – it is. But Charney challenges, if you’re running a business based on appearances, shouldn’t the superficial things play a role?

For more than an hour, we spoke with the American Apparel CEO about the photo based hiring process, Gawker’s coverage of the matter, the company’s attitude towards plus sized shoppers, why those down sales numbers are overblown  and the trouble in trying to pin down bon goût (good taste, in French).

On Hiring Based on Appearances

The Fine Line Between Judgment and Targeting

The Business Effects

What About Those “Off Brand” Customers?

Now, Debrahlee Lorenzana – a former employee at a midtown Manhattan branch of the bank, is suing Citibank claiming that she was fired for outfits deemed too sexy by Citibank. {Village Voice} Particularly in a an office with a conservative dress code – and a bank could certainly be one of those offices, there’s a fine line between fashion and an apparel faux pas. Want to go without stockings? It might work for the First Lady, but in some offices it would be considered inappropriate. Own any V-neck tops? Make sure they aren’t cut low enough to show cleavage. Want to show off those new heels? If they’re over 3″ save them for after work drinks.

While Ally McBeal gave us lawyers advocating in mini-skirts, the reality of corporate dress codes is that they often leave little room for experimentation. While prim cuts and buttoned up necklines will come back strong this fall in Prada and Marc Jacobs stores, not all designers offer collections with the corporate workplace in mind. So it’s understandable that someone trying to stay current with fashion trends might slip up on occasion when the worlds of fashion and finance don’t smoothly overlap.

But if photos taken by Lorenzana’s attorney are any indication, that doesn’t seem to be what happened. Click the thumbnails for additional photos of Lorenzana’s workplace attire including the pencil skirts and turtlenecks she was asked not to wear.

One photo shows Lorenzana in a jacket and pencil skirt, with open toe shoes. Perhaps the open toe shoes could be questioned, but the skirt is below the knee, and fitted – but not excessively tight. A wrap dress, which falls at the knee, has a V-neck which isn’t low enough to show cleavage. Then there’s the turtleneck ensemble, which does highlight Lorenzana’s enviable curves, but actually shows no flesh.

For their part, Citibank claims appearance had nothing to do with why Lorenzana was fired.

Ms. Lorenzana has chosen to make numerous unfounded accusations and inaccurate statements against Citibank and several of our employees. While we will not discuss the details of her case, we can say that her termination was solely performance-based and not at all related to her appearance or attire.

{Gawker}

Beyond Lorenzana’s claims of harassment over her workwear choices though, which were documented in complaints to Human Resources and other Citibank managers, there’s a reprimand for Lorenzana for bringing in too little business and being late two days. The problem? The two days were a Saturday and Sunday when the bank was closed. {Village Voice} A few months after being transferred to a new branch for a telemarketing position – as opposed to the business banker role she’d previously held, she was fired. The manager mentioned the previous complaints about her clothing, and said she wasn’t fit for the Citibank corporate culture.

While Lorenzana’s case may be the latest to grab headlines, it raises interesting questions about what attire is safe for work. Citibank’s policy, while prohibiting clothing that is considered provocative, fails to define what provocative or inappropriate items are, and gives managers a large degree of latitude in making those decisions. But when it comes to someone’s job, how much fashion criticism is too much?