Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:3

1

Mark D. Rosenbaum, Esq. [S.B. #59940] ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

2 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, California 90017

3 Telephone:(213)977-5000 Facsimile: (213) 977-5297

jJ 3 jj37

Email: mrosenbaumaclu-sc.org 5 Anne Richardson, Esq. [S.B. #15 1541]

CLERK U.S. DLC UT CE?’ITRAL 01ST. OF CALIF. LOS ANSELFS

6 Reem Salahi, Esq. [S.B. #2597 1 1]

HADSELL STORMER

7 RICHARDSON & RENICK LLP

8

128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103

9 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079

10 Email: arichardson@hadsellstormer.com

11

reem@hadsellstormer.com

12 Attorneys for Plaintiff IMANE BOUDLAL
13

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 IMANE BOUDLAL,

18

Plaintiff,

19

vs.

20 WALT DISNEY CORPORATION;
21 and DOES 1-10,

22

Defendants.

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
1. Violation of Title Vil’s Prohibition of Di. scri. mination and Harassment in Employment on the Basis of Religion, National Origin and Color and Failure to Remedy and Prevent
Harassment (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a))
2. Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act’s Prohibition of Harassment in Employment on the Basis of Religious Creed, National Origin and
Color (Cal. Gov’t Code §
12940(j)(l))

1

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:4

1

2

3. Violation of the California Fair

Employment and Housing Act’s

3

Prohibition of Discrimination in

4

Employment on the Basis of

Religious Creed (Cal. Gov’t Code §

5

12940(a))

6

4. Failure to Remedy and Prevent

7

Discrimination and Harassment (Cal.

8

Gov’t Code § 12940(k))

9

5. Wrongful Termination in Violation

10

of Public Policy

11

6. Negligent Retention and Supervision

12 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional

13

Distress

14 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 3 of 34 Page ID #:5

1

I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

2 1. Imane Boudlal, the plaintiff in this case, is a 28 year old naturalized United

3 States citizen of Moroccan origin and an adherent of the Muslim faith. On or

4 about April 12, 2008, she began working as a hostess at the Storytellers Café in the

5 Grand Californian Hotel and Spa, part of the complex operated by the Walt Disney

6 Company (“Disney”) in Anaheim, California.

7 2. From early on in her employment, Ms. Boudlal suffered from repeated

8 ethnic and religious slurs from her co-workers, which she reported to management.

9 Among other things, she was called a “terrorist,” “camel,” and “Kunta Kinte,” the

10 slave from the famous book Roots by Alex Haley. Ms. Boudlal’s co-workers also

11 mocked her by stating, among other things, that Arabs are terrorists, that she

12 speaks the terrorist language and that she was trained to make bombs. Ms. Boudlal

13 repeatedly reported the harassment to her managers, who admitted there was a

14 problem, but who never took any action. On most occasions, Ms. Boudlal’s

15 managers merely deflected the complaints by stating that it would take time to

16 change things. Finally, one of the managers told her that she needed to stop

17 complaining.

18 3. As part of her Muslim faith, it is Ms. Boudlal’s sincere religious belief that

19 for her, the wearing of the hijab, sometimes referred to as a headscarf or veil, is

20 commanded by the Qur’an, the sacred book of Islam. The term hijab, translated as

21 “cover,” “curtain,” or “veil,” connotes the Islamic mandate of modesty and is

22 regarded by much of the female Muslim population as an essential element of

23 virtue and religiosity. To unveil Muslim women who have chosen to wear a hijab

24 is an act of intolerance forcibly requiring disavowal of and disrespect to their most

25 fundamental religious beliefs.

26 4. In June 2010, after two years of working at Disney, Ms. Boudlal determined

27 that she would permanently wear a hijab so as to act faithfully in accord with her

28 religious beliefs. At about this time, Ms. Boudlal asked her supervisors for

3

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:6
1 permission to wear the hijab in the course of her work. It was her intent in 2 particular to begin wearing the hijab at work by the beginning of Ramadan, the 3 Muslim holy month of fasting, which began on August 11, 2010. After a nearly 4 two month delay, the managers denied her request, stating that wearing the hijab in 5 her current position violated Disney’s “look” policy. The managers stated that if 6 Ms. Boudlal wore a hijab, it would negatively affect patrons’ experiences at the 7 Storytellers Café. 8 5. Instead, Disney gave Ms. Boudlal an ultimatum that if she insisted on 9 wearing a hijab while continuing to work for Disney: (1) she could either be 10 stationed in the rear of the restaurant where she would have no contact with or 11 exposure to customers or (2) she could wear several large hats of various colors on 12 top of the hijab, which no one else at the Café was required to wear (or did wear). 13 Disney managers told Ms. Boudlal that if she refused these options, they would 14 terminate her employment. When Ms. Boudlal refused, explaining that she found 15 these options humiliating and an infringement of her religious beliefs, Disney 16 removed her from the Café’s schedule and discharged her from further 17 employment. 18 6. Disney maintained its position despite the fact that Ms. Boudlal’s hostess 19 position did not require that she wear the costume of any Disney character, but 20 rather a uniform as worn by other wait staff. Ms. Boudlal repeatedly sought to find 21 a compromise, including offering to wear a hijab matching the colors of her 22 uniform and even bearing a Disney logo. All her compromise offers were rejected 23 out of hand by Disney management. Disney did not seek to enforce its “look” 24 policy against other hosts or hostesses at the Storytellers Café who visibly 25 displayed tattoos, crosses, and other religious insignia or wore their hair or did 26 their nails in an ostentatious and impermissible manner. 27 7. In enacting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress recognized 28 that America is a nation founded on the credo of religious, racial and national
.4

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:7

1 origin tolerance and therefore made it unlawful for an employee:

2

(1) to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against

3

any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,

4

or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s...

5

color, religion. . . or national origin; or

6

(2)to limit, segregate, or classify his employees . . . in any way which

7

would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment

8

opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an

9

employee, because of such individual’s. . . color, religion.. . . or

10

national origin.

11 In violation of Ms. Boudlal’s rights under Title VII on the basis of her religion,

12 national origin and color, Disney failed to provide her with a working environment

13 free of unlawful harassment and refused to provide a reasonable accommodation

14 for her sincerely held religious belief that wearing a hijab is required by her faith

15 and by providing favorable treatment to similarly situated persons outside her

16 protected class. Disney’s treatment of Ms. Boudlal fostered the unmistakable

17 message that Disney both tolerated and encouraged the harassment which she

18 suffered. California law similarly protects employees against discrimination and

19 harassment on the basis of religion, national origin and color.

20

II. JURIsDIcTIoN AND VENUE

21 8. This lawsuit for damages and injunctive relief challenges Disney’s failure to

22 timely and effectively prevent and remedy harassment of Imane Boudlal based on

23 her religion, national origin and color as well as Disney’s refusal to provide

24 reasonable accommodations for Ms. Boudlal’s practice and observance of her

25 religion, in violation of the laws of the United States. This Court has subject

26 matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343, because the cause of

27 action asserted arises under federal law, namely 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

28 Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental

5

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 6 of 34 Page ID #:8

1 jurisdiction for state law claims made under Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940, because
2 such claims stem from part of the same case or controversy arising from a common

3 nucleus of operative fact.

4 9. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

5 committed within the County of Orange in State of California which is within the

6 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of

7 California. Venue is therefore proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

8

III. PARTIES

9 10. Plaintiff Imane Boudlal is a native of Morocco and a 28 year old naturalized

10 citizen of the United States. Ms. Boudlal has adhered to the Muslim faith for her

11 entire life. It is her sincerely held belief that wearing a hijab in public is required

12 by her faith.

13 11. Defendant Walt Disney Corporation (“Disney”) is the world’s largest media

14 conglomerate, as measure by revenue. Incorporated in Delaware and

15 headquartered in Burbank, California, Disney has four divisions: Studio

16 Entertainment, Consumer Products, Media Networks, and Parks and Resorts. Walt

17 Disney’s Parks and Resorts, LLC owns and operates the Storytellers Café at the

18 Grand Californian Hotel and Spa in Anaheim, California. At all relevant times, the

19 Storytellers Café has had more than fifteen employees.

20 12. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and legal capacities of the Defendants

21 sued here as DOES 1 through 10 and, therefore, sues those Defendants by such

22 fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend her complaint to allege their true names and

23 capacities when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes,

24 and on this basis alleges, that each DOE Defendant is in some way legally

25 responsible for the acts, omissions, and damages alleged here to have been caused

26 by each remaining Defendant.

27

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

28 13. In April 2008, Disney hired Imane Boudlal as a hostess at the Storytellers

6

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 7 of 34 Page ID #:9

1 Café in the Grand Californian Hotel and Spa, part of the Disney complex in

2 Anaheim, California.

3 14. Ms. Boudlal is a practicing Muslim of Moroccan origin and a naturalized

4 citizen of the United States.

5

Hostile Work Environment

6 15. Beginning in the summer of 2008, Ms. Boudlal became the subject of insults

7 and epithets on the basis of her religion, national origin and color by her co

8 workers and supervisors.

9 16. For a period of over two years from approximately July 2008 to August

10 2010, Ms. Boudlal’s co-workers, including Sandra Acosta, and supervisors,

11 including Jesus Serrano, Brian Cardenas, and Jaymee Koymoon, called her

12 derogatory and discriminatory slurs. On a weekly, if not daily basis, Ms. Boudlal’s

13 co-workers and supervisors would taunt her calling her such names as “camel,”

14 “terrorist,” “bitch,” and “Kunta Kinte,” the slave from the famous book Roots by

15 Alex Haley. Ms. Boudlal was greatly pained by the name calling and repeatedly

16 asked her co-workers and supervisors to stop, to no avail.

17 17. Ms. Boudlal’s co-workers and supervisors also made repeated comments to

18 her that Arabs are terrorists, that she speaks the terrorist language, that she is

19 trained to make bombs, that she gets scanned by security wherever she goes, that

20 she escaped from her family, that people from her country bomb the soccer field

21 when they don’t win games, that she learned how to make bombs at the mosque

22 and that she not kill a co-worker’s boyfriend (“please don’t kill my boyfriend!

23 Terrorist! !“), to name a few.

24 18. In an effort to end the harassment, Ms. Boudlal complained on numerous

25 occasions to her managers in writing and orally. Her written statements included:

26

a. In July 2008, Ms. Boudlal provided a written statement to Manager

27

Marissa Hermosa complaining of the name calling, harassment and

28

hostile work environment. Ms. Hermosa never followed up with Ms.

7

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 8 of 34 Page ID #:10

1

Boudlal to inform her of any corrective actions taken by Disney and

2

the harassment continued.

3

b. In May 2010, Ms. Boudlal provided a written statement to Manager

4

Karun Kapata highlighting the hostile work environment and

5

harassment that she was experiencing. Mr. Kapata never followed up

6

with Ms. Boudlal to inform her of any corrective actions taken by

7

Disney and the harassment continued.

8

c. On July 27, 2010, Ms. Boudlal provided a written statement to

9

Manager Bryan Maroun reiterating the hostility and harassment she

10

was experiencing. In her statement, Ms. Boudlal noted that her co

11

workers were making fun of her based on her race and religion and

12

that they called her “Kunta” and “terrorist.” Mr. Maroun never

13

followed up with Ms. Boudlal to inform her of any corrective actions

14

taken by Disney and the harassment continued.

15

d. On August 11, 2010, Ms. Boudlal provided a written statement to

16

Manager James Nghiem with further details of harassment based on

17

religion, national origin and color. In her statement, Ms. Boudlal

18

noted that her coworker Sandra Acosta told Ms. Boudlal, “Look

19

you[r] family are seating on that side” referring to an African

20

American family and that her supervisor Jaymee Bryan called Ms.

21

Boudlal “Kunta” and that those and other comments occurred “at least

22

once a week.” Ms. Boudlal also detailed other days when she

23

provided her managers with written complaints. Mr. Nghiem never

24

followed up with Ms. Boudlal to inform her of any corrective actions

25

taken by Disney and the harassment continued.

26 19. In addition, Ms. Boudlal verbally complained to her managers James

27 Towning, Bryan Maroun, Karun Kaputa, Marissa Hermosa, James Nghiern, Erin

28 Truax, and Mike Ashraft from July 2008 to the time of her termination. While Ms.

8

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 9 of 34 Page ID #:11

1 Boudlal’s managers admitted that the employees’ actions were inappropriate, they

2 failed to take any corrective action and merely deflected responsibility by

3 informing Ms. Boudlal that she ‘just misunderstood [her] co-workers” and that “it

4 will take time to change things.” Finally, one of the managers told her that she

5 needed to stop complaining and any future complaints needed to be made only to

6 Manager Bryan Maroun.

7 20. At no point during Ms. Boudlal’s employment was she informed that any

8 corrective action was taken. Nor was Ms. Boudlal notified that her harassers were

9 to be reprimanded or sanctioned for their actions. Indeed, Ms. Boudlal continued

10 to experience harassment until the time of her termination.

11

Ms. Boudlal’s Decision to Wear a Hi jab

12 21. Like many young Muslim women, Ms. Boudlal has given considerable

13 thought and study to questions about what it means to be a devout religious person

14 of her faith. Part of that inquiry concerned the decision to wear a hijab

15 permanently and irreversibly, in both her private and public life. During 2009, Ms.

16 Boudlal determined that Islam required that she wear a hijab in public. The only

17 exception she made to this practice was for her work for Disney, as she feared that

18 Disney would terminate her employment and she would lose necessary income.

19 As consequence, Ms. Boudlal would remove her hijab in Disney’s parking lot

20 before entering the Café. This decision increasingly caused her to feel that she was

21 unfaithful to a core tenet of her religion by living a double life as to her beliefs, and

22 in June 2010 she therefore determined that she could not continue as a religious

23 Muslim by removing her hijab in public, regardless of place or consequence. Ms.

24 Boudlal therefore sought permission from Disney to wear her hijab in her position

25 as hostess at the Café.

26 22. At no point did Disney or any of its managers or employees question the

27 sincerity of Ms. Boudlal’s religious practice or beliefs, or her decision to wear a

28 hijab in the course of her work at Disney as a sincere expression of this practice

9

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 10 of 34 Page ID #:12

1 and these beliefs.

2

The Religious Significance of the Hijab

3 23. The practice of Muslim women covering their bodies in the presence of non-

4 familial men has deep roots in Islam. Qur’anic passages have long supported a

5 belief among many Muslim women prevalent through the ages and widespread in

6 many parts of the Islamic world today, that the practice of veiling is the fulfillment

7 of religious duty. Ms. Boudlal is an adherent of this belief.

8 24. To many Muslim women, then, beginning the practice of hijab is a step of

9 enormous personal and spiritual import. It is common practice for a Muslim

10 woman to wait to wear the headscarf on a permanent and irreversible basis until a

11 point in her life when she believes she has attained a level of religious piety

12 signified by its wearing. This was the case for Ms. Boudlal. As a young person,

13 she imagined herself one day ready to practice hijab, but did not feel spiritually yet

14 prepared to do so. Growing up, she had observed her faith in other ways she

15 believed did not fully express the meaning and commands of Islam to her,

16 including wearing the hijab during the holy month of Ramadan.

17

The Storytellers Café and Disney’s “Look” Policy

18 25. The Storytellers Café serves an all-you-can-eat buffet-style breakfast, and

19 offers pizza, sandwiches and salads for lunch and dinner. It is described on the

20 Disney website as celebrating the age-old theme of storytelling. Disney characters

21 such as chipmunks Chip ‘n’ Dale visit the restaurant floor to interact with

22 customers. However, the restaurant’s wait and host staff do not wear period or

23 character costumes. Instead, these employees wear uniforms similar to those worn

24 at many other restaurants, consisting of dark pants, a white shirt, and a gold vest.

25 Disney has claimed that the restaurant’s costume and decorations reflect an early

26 19th century America theme, but the requirement that waitresses wear pants,

27 among other facts, reflect that the stated theme is not applied rigorously, given that

28 no woman in 19th century America wore pants at work.

10

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 11 of 34 Page ID #:13
1 26. Disney states that it expects that all hourly paid personnel working for 2 Disney Parks and Resorts to adhere to the company’s “look” policy. It states too 3 that its employees must comply with the policy “[nb matter where [they] work or 4 what [their] role is,” because “anytime [they] are in a public area, [they] are ‘on 5 stage.” 6 27. However, the “look” policy is not applied at all or consistently at the 7 Storytellers Café. For instance, although the policy prohibits visible tattoos, 8 artificial hair that does not look natural, hair dyeing or highlighting that does not 9 create a uniform look over the whole head, and fingernails that exceed one-fourth 10 of an inch, each of these requirements has been routinely violated by multiple 11 employees of the Café without repercussion. Christian employees observing Ash 12 Wednesday were permitted by Disney to work with a cross of ashes on their 13 foreheads despite the fact that this too facially violates the “look” policy. 14 28. With respect to “headwear,” Disney’s “look” policy provides that “[t]he only 15 hats and sun visors that may be worn are those issued by Costuming as part of the 16 costume.” However, the “look” policy permits employees to request exceptions 17 for religious beliefs. 18 Disney’s Refusal of Ms. Boudlal’s Request for Religious Accommodation 19 29. In June 2010, Ms. Boudlal had been wearing the headscarf in all public 20 places at all times, except for her workplace, for approximately eight months, and 21 had grown deeply uncomfortable living a double life respecting her religious and 22 spiritual beliefs. Accordingly, Ms. Boudlal spoke with Ms. Erin Truax, Employee 23 Relations Manager for Southern California, and requested an exception to Disney’s 24 “look” policy to wear the headscarf. 25 30. Ms. Truax said that she needed to talk to “corporate” and would get back to 26 Ms. Boudlal in a few weeks. She did not do so. Ms. Boudlal therefore called Ms. 27 Truax repeatedly over the course of the next two months to obtain a response to her 28 request, left numerous phone messages for her. She was twice told that Ms. Truax
11

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 12 of 34 Page ID #:14
1 was on vacation. Ms. Truax never responded to these calls. 2 31. Because Ms. Boudlal received no response from Ms. Truax regarding her 3 request for religious accommodation, she was left with no alternative but to put a 4 complaint in writing and she thereafter spoke with an employee relations 5 representative in Florida. Only then did Ms. Truax set up an appointment with Ms. 6 Boudlal to discuss her request to wear a headscarf while on the job. The meeting 7 took place on July 30, 2010. At this meeting, Ms. Truax informed Ms. Boudlal 8 that her request for accommodation was approved and that Disney would provide 9 Ms. Boudlal with a scarf to match her uniform of green slacks, white blouse, and 10 yellow vest. Ms. Boudlal stated that it was very important for her to be able to 11 wear the hijab by the beginning of Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting, which 12 began on August 11, 2010 that year. Ms. Boudlal and Ms. Truax scheduled a time 13 to go to the Disney costume department on August 9, 2010 to obtain measurements 14 in order to be fitted for a head scarf. However, Disney managers unilaterally 15 rescheduled the meeting to August 12, 2010, after Ramadan had begun. 16 32. On August 12, 2010, Ms. Boudlal was accordingly fitted for a head scarf by 17 the costuming director at Disney in Anaheim. Ms. Boudlal asked how long she 18 would have to wait before she could wear a head scarf at work. Ms. Truax replied 19 that because the measurements would have to be sent to Florida and thereafter 20 corporate approval of a particular head scarf was required, she could not provide 21 any estimate of a date. Ms. Truax also stated that this was the first time Disney 22 had ever received such a request. 23 33. The statement by Ms. Truax as to Disney’s past history was in error. At 24 least two prior actions on behalf of female Muslim employees had been brought 25 against Disney and settled. 26 34. In the same conversation, Ms. Boudlal asked Ms. Truax if she could wear 27 her hijab in the interim until Disney made a final decision. Ms. Truax refused this 28 request and told Ms. Boudlal that Disney would need more time.
12

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 13 of 34 Page ID #:15
1 35. Ms. Truax told Ms. Boudlal that she could wear her hijab if she transferred 2 to the bakery, where she would work “in the back” unseen by customers. But Ms. 3 Truax added that there were many experienced applicants in line for the bakery 4 position and that it would be difficult for Ms. Boudlal to in fact secure the position. 5 Indeed, the time period to apply for the bakery position had already passed. 6 36. On Sunday, August 15, 2010, Ms. Boudlal arrived at work for a 6:30 a.m. to 7 1:00 p.m. shift. As she had received no further response from Ms. Truax or from 8 anyone at Disney, she wore her own hijab. Her manager, Mike Ashraft, stated to 9 her that he did not have a problem with her wearing the hijab, and Ms. Boudlal 10 proceededlo work as hostess without incident. 11 37. Some three hours later, at about 9:30 a.m., Ms. Boudlal was called into Mr. 12 Ashraft’s office. Mr. Ashraft and James Nghiem, another manager, then told her 13 that she could not wear the hijab because it violated Disney’s “look” policy and 14 they were concerned about how her wearing a hijab would impact the experience 15 of guests at Disney. Ms. Boudlal responded that her request had been approved on 16 July 30 and that it was important to her religious belief to wear a hijab, especially 17 as Ramadan had begun. 18 38. Mr. Ashraft and Mr. Nghiem stated that she had only two options: she could 19 wait until Disney provided her with a hat or something to cover her hijab or she 20 could work in the rear of the Café out of sight of the guests. Otherwise, they stated 21 that she would be required to leave the Café without pay. Ms. Boudlal rejected the 22 options as an infringement of her sincerely held religious beliefs. The managers 23 thereafter sent Ms. Boudlal home about three hours before the end of her shift. 24 39. On the following day, August 16, 2010, Ms. Boudlal arrived for her assigned 25 shift, beginning at 7:30 a.m. She was wearing her hijab. Her manager, Bryan 26 Maroun, asked to speak with her and told her that the hijab did not comply with the 27 Disney “look.” Mr. Maroun stated that she had only two options: she could work 28 “backstage” away from customers and wear her hijab or she could return to her
13

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 14 of 34 Page ID #:16

1 hostess position without her hijab until a hat or something to cover her hijab was

2 provided to her. Ms. Boudlal rejected these options as an infringement of her

3 sincerely held religious beliefs. Mr. Maroun thereafter sent Ms. Boudlal home.

4 40. During the time when Mr. Maroun was directing Ms. Boudlal to leave the

5 Café, one hostess was wearing her hair in a manner that did not comply with the

6 Disney “look” policy and tattooing on her body was visible.

7 41. On the following day, August 17, 2010, Ms. Boudlal arrived for her assigned

8 shift, beginning at 2:00 p.m. She was wearing her hijab. Her managers, Mr.

9 Ashraft, Mr. Nghiem and Mr. Maroun, told her that the hijab did not comply with

10 the Disney “look” policy. Ms. Boudlal replied that employees at the Café

11 violated the “look” policy and received no disciplinary treatment. Ms. Boudlal

12 then asked how long it would be before Disney provided an accommodation for

13 her hijab. The managers replied that they did not know. The managers thereafter

14 sent Ms. Boudlal home.

15

Ms. Boudlal’s Continuing Efforts to Find a Reasonable Accommodation

16 42. Ms. Boudlal met with Disney officials after August 17 to attempt to find a

17 reasonable accommodation to her religious practice and belief requiring her to

18 wear a hijab. Disney officials offered her only the option of wearing a hat over her

19 hijab. No other employee at the Storytellers Café wears a hat. Ms. Boudlal

20 rejected the option as an infringement of her sincerely held religious beliefs.

21 43. On August 31, 2010, Ms. Boudlal met with Disney officers. These officers

22 offered her only the option of wearing a multi-colored head scarf made of the same

23 material as her uniform vest under a hat made of the same material. No other

24 employee at the Storytellers Café wears a hat. Ms. Boudlal rejected the option as

25 an infringement of her sincerely held religious beliefs, though she offered to wear

26 alone the head scarf designed by Disney. Disney officers rejected this compromise

27 and insisted that Ms. Boudlal wear a hat at all times.

28 44. Disney thereafter informed Ms. Boudlal that she could work elsewhere in

14

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 15 of 34 Page ID #:17

1 the Disney complex, but in all cases “behind the scenes” and away from public

2 view. Ms. Boudlal rejected this option as an infringement of her sincerely held

3 religious beliefs.

4 45. Ms. Boudlal is no longer an active employee at Disney. Disney has not

5 offered Ms. Boudlal any hours or placed her on the work schedule since August

6 21, 2010. Indeed, Ms. Boudlal hasn’t worked at the Storyteller’s Café since

7 August 15, 2010, shortly after Ms. Boudlal rejected Disney’s ultimatum to either

8 wait and wear a hat at all times or work “behind the scenes”.

9 46. Ms. Boudlal was not provided a reasonable accommodation by Disney for

10 her sincerely held religious beliefs. But for the illegal and discriminatory action by

11 Disney, Ms. Boudlal would have been continuously employed at the Storytellers

12 Café. By virtue of her illegal termination, Ms. Boudlal has been disadvantaged in

13 future pursuit of employment.

14 47. On August 18, 2010, Ms Boudlal jointly filed a claim of national origin,

15 color and religious discrimination against Disney with the EEOC and DFEH.

16 48. Ms. Boudlal has exhausted her administrative remedies and received her

17 Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on August 8, 2012.

18

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

19

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

20 Violation of Title VIl’s Prohibition of Discrimination and Harassment in

21 Employment on the Basis of Religion, National Origin and Color and Failure

22

to Remedy and Prevent Harassment

23

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a))

24

[Plaintiff Against All Defendants]

25 49. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 48 of this Complaint as if fully

26 set forth herein.

27 50. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer:

28

(1)to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against

15

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 16 of 34 Page ID #:18

1

any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,

2

or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s...

3

color, religion.. . or national origin; or

4

(2)to limit, segregate, or classify his employees . . . in any way which

5

would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment

6

opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an

7

employee, because of such individual’s. . . color, religion. . . . or

8

national origin.

9 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Title VII defines religion to include “all aspects of

10 religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer

11 demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or

12 prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on

13 the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).
14 51. Title Vii’s prohibition on employment discrimination and harassment on the

15 basis of religion, national origin and color applies to all businesses with fifteen or

16 more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in

17 the current or preceding calendar year. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e. Disney corporation

18 generally and Storytellers Café specifically have had more than fifteen employees

19 at all relevant times.

20 52. In violation of Title VII, plaintiff Boudlal was subjected to offensive

21 comments and other abusive conduct that was severe and pervasive by both her

22 supervisors and co-workers based on her religion, national origin and color,

23 altering the conditions of her employment. The conduct was unreasonably abusive

24 and created an offensive and hostile work environment for plaintiff and for any

25 reasonable person in plaintiffs position.

26 53. In violation of Title VII, plaintiffs supervisors harassed plaintiff by calling

27 her discriminatory and derogatory slurs such as “camel,” “terrorist” and “Kunta

28 Kinte.” Plaintiffs supervisors also made discriminatory and derogatory comments

16

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 17 of 34 Page ID #:19
1 related to plaintiffs religion, national origin and color including that Arabs are 2 terrorists, that she speaks the terrorist language, that she is trained to make bombs, 3 and that she gets scanned by security wherever she goes. 4 54. In violation of Title VII, Disney’s management failed to take prompt action 5 to remedy and prevent the harassment by plaintiffs supervisors and co-workers. 6 Defendants further failed to train, supervise, and monitor their employees and 7 agents. Indeed, Ms. Boudlal’s managers deflected responsibility by informing 8 plaintiff that she “just misunderstood [her] co-workers” and that “it will take time 9 to change things.” Finally, one of the managers told her that she needed to stop 10 complaining. 11 55. Defendants’ failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment based on 12 religion, national origin and color fostered, created and encouraged an environment 13 where such harassment was condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned and/or 14 ratified. 15 56. Defendant Disney is vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of its agents and 16 employees directly and/or under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Equal 17 Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines a supervisor as someone 18 with the power to direct the employee’s daily work activities. Plaintiffs harassing 19 supervisors directed Ms. Boudlal’s daily work activities, amongst other roles. 20 57. Plaintiff Boudlal continuously complained to Disney’s management about 21 the harassing conduct of her supervisors in writing and orally from approximately 22 July 2008 to the time of her termination, yet defendant Disney failed to take 23 decisive steps to end the misconduct. 24 58. In violation of Title VII, defendant Disney discriminated against Ms. 25 Boudlal on the basis of her religion by refusing to provide a reasonable 26 accommodation for her sincerely held religious belief that wearing a hijab is 27 required by her faith. 28 59. In violation of Title VII, defendant Disney also discriminated against Ms.
17

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 18 of 34 Page ID #:20

1 Boudlal on the basis of her religion by removing her from the schedule and not

2 permitting her to return to work in her current position if wearing her hijab, while

3 providing more favorable treatment of similarly situated persons outside her

4 protected class and through other acts or omissions giving rise to an inference of

5 discrimination.

6 60. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, Ms.

7 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but

8 not limited to, emotional distress, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered

9 and continues to suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is

10 thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at

11 trial.

12 61. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was

13 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were

14 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious

15 disregard for plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

16 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

17

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

18 Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act’s Prohibition

19

of Harassment in Employment on the Basis of Religious Creed, National

20

Origin and Color

21

(Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(j)(1))

22

[Plaintiff Against All Defendants]

23 62. Plaintiff Boudlal incorporates paragraphs 1 through 6lof this Complaint as if

24 fully set forth herein.

25 63. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) proscribes

26 employers from harassing an employee “because of. . . religious creed, color,

27 national origin.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a).
28 64. Further, FERAL makes it unlawful for an employer that “knows or should

18

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 19 of 34 Page ID #:21
1 have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective 2 action.” Id. 3 65. In violation of FEHA, plaintiff Boudlal was subjected to offensive 4 comments and other abusive conduct based on her religion, national origin and 5 color by her supervisors and co-workers that was severe and pervasive, altering the 6 conditions of her employment. The conduct was unreasonably abusive and created 7 an offensive and hostile work environment for plaintiff and for any reasonable 8 person in plaintiffs position. 9 66. In violation of FEHA, plaintiffs supervisors and co-workers harassed 10 plaintiff by calling her discriminatory and derogatory slurs such as “camel,” 11 “terrorist” and “Kunta Kinte.” Plaintiffs supervisors and co-workers also made 12 discriminatory and derogatory comments related to plaintiffs religion, national 13 origin and color including that Arabs are terrorists, that she speaks the terrorist 14 language, that she is trained to make bombs, and that she gets scanned by security 15 wherever she goes. 16 67. Plaintiff Boudlal repeatedly complained to her managers about the harassing 17 conduct of her supervisors and co-workers in writing and orally from 18 approximately July 2008 to the time of her termination. 19 68. In violation of FEHA, Ms. Boudlal’s managers failed to take prompt and 20 appropriate action to remedy and prevent the harassment of plaintiff by her 21 supervisors and co-workers. Indeed, Ms. Boudlal’s managers deflected 22 responsibility by informing plaintiff that she “just misunderstood [her] co-workers” 23 and that “it will take time to change things.” Finally, one of the managers told her 24 that she needed to stop complaining. 25 69. Defendant Disney is strictly liable for the offensive and harassing conduct of 26 its supervisors. The FEHA defines a supervisor as someone with the power to 27 direct the employee’s daily work activities as was the case with Ms. Boudlal’s 28 supervisors.
19

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 20 of 34 Page ID #:22

1 70. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, Ms.

2 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but

3 not limited to, emotional distress, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered

4 and continues to suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is

5 thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at

6 trial.

7 71. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was

8 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were

9 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious

10 disregard for plaintiffs rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

11 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

12

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

13 Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act’s Prohibition

14

of Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of Religious Creed

15

(Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a))

16

jPlaintiff Against All Defendants]

17 72. Plaintiff Boudlal incorporates paragraph 1 through 71 of this Complaint as if

18 fully set forth herein

19 73. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes “it is an

20 unlawful employment practice... [f]or an employer, because of the. . . religious

21 creed. . . of any person,. . . to discriminate against the person in compensation or

22 in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a).

23 74. Further, FEHA prohibits “an employer ... [from] discriminat[ing] against a

24 person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment

25 because of a conflict between the person’s religious belief or observance and any

26 employment requirement, unless the employer. . . demonstrates that it has

27 explored any available reasonable alternative means of accommodating the

28 religious belief or observance, including the possibilities of excusing the person

20

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 21 of 34 Page ID #:23
1 from those duties that conflict with his or her religious belief or observance or 2 permitting those duties to be performed at another time or by another person, but is 3 unable to reasonably accommodate the religious belief or observance without 4 undue hardship on the conduct of the business of the employer or other entity
5 covered by this part.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(1).
6 75. FEHA’s prohibition on discrimination in employment on the basis of 7 religious creed applies to businesses regularly employing five or more persons.
8 Cal. Gov’t Code § 12926. The Disney corporation generally and Storytellers Café
9 specifically have employed more than five persons at all relevant times. 10 76. In violation of FEHA, defendant Disney discriminated against Ms. Boudlal 11 on the basis of her religious creed by removing her from the schedule and not 12 pennitting her to return to work in her current position if wearing her hijab, while 13 providing more favorable treatment of similarly situated persons outside her 14 protected class and through other acts or omissions giving rise to an inference of 15 discrimination. 16 77. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, Ms. 17 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but 18 not limited to, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 19 suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled 20 to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 21 78. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was 22 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were 23 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious 24 disregard for plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions. 25 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///
21

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 22 of 34 Page ID #:24

1

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

Failure to Remedy and Prevent Discrimination and Harassment

3

(Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(k))

4

jPlaintiff Against All Defendantsj

5 79. Plaintiff Boudlal incorporates paragraph 1 through 78 of this Complaint as if

6 fully set forth herein

7 80. FEHA requires employers to take “all reasonable steps necessary to prevent

8 discrimination and harassment from occurring.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(k).
9 81. In violation of FEHA, Plaintiff Boudlal was subjected to severe and

10 pervasive harassment and discrimination based on her religious creed, national

11 origin and color. Plaintiff Boudlal complained about the harassment and

12 discrimination to her managers on multiple occasions in writing and orally from

13 approximately July 2008 to the time of her termination.

14 82. In violation of FEHA, defendants failed to take all reasonable steps

15 necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment based on plaintiffs religious

16 creed, national origin and color. In addition, defendants failed to remedy such

17 discrimination and harassment when they realized and were informed that it was

18 occurring. Defendants further failed to train, supervise, and monitor their

19 employees and agents.

20 83. Indeed, Ms. Boudlal’s managers deflected responsibility by informing

21 plaintiff that she “just misunderstood [her] co-workers” and that “it will take time

22 to change things.” Finally, one of the managers told her that she needed to stop

23 complaining. Defendants’ failure to take reasonable steps to prevent

24 discrimination and harassment based on religious creed, national origin and color

25 fostered, created and encouraged an environment where such discrimination and

26 harassment was condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned and/or ratified.

27 84. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, Ms.

28 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but

22

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 23 of 34 Page ID #:25

1 not limited to, emotional distress, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered

2 and continues to suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is

3 thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at

4 trial.

5 85. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was

6 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were

7 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious

8 disregard for plaintiff’s rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

9 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

10

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

11

Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

12

(Plaintiff Against All Defendants]

13 86. Plaintiff Boudlal incorporates paragraphs 1 through 85 of this Complaint as

14 if fully set forth herein.

15 87. For all the reasons set forth above, the conduct of defendants in not offering

16 Ms. Boudlal any hours or placing her on the work schedule since August 21, 2010

17 constituted termination. Such termination is contrary to public policy, as embodied

18 in the following laws, statutes and regulations, among others: all state and federal

19 statutes and regulations prohibiting discrimination and failure to accommodate

20 religion, including Title VII and the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

21 88. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, Ms.

22 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but

23 not limited to, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

24 suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled

25 to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

26 89. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was

27 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were

28 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious

23

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 24 of 34 Page ID #:26

1 disregard for plaintiffs rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

2 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

3

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4

Negligent Retention and Supervision

5

jPlaintiff Against All Defendantsl

6 90. Plaintiff Boudlal incorporates paragraphs 1 through 89 of this Complaint as

7 if fully set forth herein.

8 91. Plaintiff Boudlal was subjected to severe and pervasive harassment and

9 discrimination based on her religious creed, national origin and color by her

10 supervisors and co-workers. Plaintiff Boudlal complained of the harassment and

11 discrimination to her managers on multiple occasions in writing and orally from

12 approximately July 2008 to the time of her termination.

13 92. Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In

14 failing to do so, defendants showed demonstrable negligence in the retention and

15 supervision of their employees resulting in a foreseeable harm on plaintiff.

16 Defendants’ negligence created and encouraged an environment where such

17 discrimination and harassment was condoned, encouraged, tolerated, affirmatively

18 authorized and/or ratified.

19 93. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, Ms.

20 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but

21 not limited to, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

22 suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled

23 to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

24 94. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was

25 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were

26 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious

27 disregard for plaintiffs rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

28 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

24

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 25 of 34 Page ID #:27

1

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

3

[Plaintiff Against All Defendantsj

4 95. Plaintiff Boudlal incorporates paragraphs 1 through 94 of this Complaint as

5 if fully set forth herein.

6 96. As described above, the conduct of defendants and their agents/employees

7 was outrageous and outside the normal scope of the employment relationship.

8 Specifically, defendants’ harassment and discrimination toward plaintiff based on

9 religion, national origin and color, in violation federal and state law, constitute

10 conduct outside of the normal scope of the employment relationship and violative

11 of public policy.

12 97. Defendants knew that their conduct would result in plaintiffs severe

13 emotional distress, and said conduct was perpetrated by defendants with the intent

14 to inflict, or with reckless disregard of the probability of inflicting humiliation,

15 mental anguish, and severe emotional distress upon plaintiff. Such conduct did, in

16 fact, result in severe emotional distress on plaintiff

17 98. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, Ms.

18 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but

19 not limited to, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

20 suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled

21 to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

22 99. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was

23 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were

24 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious

25 disregard for plaintiffs rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

26 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

27 ///

28 ///

25

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 26 of 34 Page ID #:28

1

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter

3 judgment in her favor:

4

(a) Declaring that the actions of Defendants described above constitute

5 harassment on the basis of religion or religious creed, national origin and color in

6 violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and
7 the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §S 12940(j)(1)

8 and 12940(k).

9

(b) Declaring that the actions of Defendants described above constitute

10 discrimination on the basis of religion or religious creed in violation of Title VII of

11 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and the California Fair

12 Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a) and 12940(1).

13

(b) Permanently enjoining Defendants and its directors, officers, agents, and

14 employees from enforcing its policy or practice of prohibiting wait or host staff

15 employees who are adherents of the Muslim faith from wearing hijabs while in

16 positions involving interaction with customers unless such hijabs are concealed by

17 a hat or other object.

18

(c) Training of Disney employees, supervisors and managers regarding

19 harassment and discrimination;

20

(d) Awarding Plaintiff applicable statutory, actual, and punitive damages

21 under each cause of action;

22

(e) Awarding Plaintiff her expenses, costs, fees, and other disbursements

23 associated with the filing and maintenance of this action, including reasonable

24 attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k), California Gov’t Code

25 § 12965, California Code of Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 and any other applicable provision
26 of law;

27

(f) Awarding such other equitable and further relief as the Court deems just

28 and proper. V

26

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 27 of 34 Page ID #:29

1 Dated: August 10, 2012 2 3

Respectfully submitted,
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

5 6 7 8
Dated: August 10, 2012
10 11

By: Mark D. Rosenbaum Attorneys for Plaintiff IMANE BOUDLAL
Respectfully submitted,
HADSELL STORMER RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP

‘3

Anne Richardson

14

Reem Salahi

15

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IMANE BOUDLAL

16

17

18

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

19 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
20

21 Dated: August 10, 2012
22
23

Respectfully submitted,
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

By:_____________

26

MarkD. Rosenbaum

27

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IMANE BOUDLAL 28

27

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 28 of 34 Page ID #:30

1 Dated: August 10, 2012 2 3

Respectfully submitted,
HAD SELL STORMER RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP

5

By:___

Anne Richardson

6

Reem Salahi

7

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IMANE BOUDLAL

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 29 of 34 Page ID #:31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY
This case has been assigned to District Judge David 0. Carter and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is Arthur Nakazato. The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:
SACV12- 1306 DOC (ANx) Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions.
All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintiffs). Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location:

Western Division

312 N. Spring St., Rm. G-8

,

Los Angeles, CA 90012

/

Southern Division 411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516

u Eastern Division 3470 Twelfth St., Rm. 134 Riverside, CA 92501

Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you.

CV-18 (03/06)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 30 of 34 Page ID #:32

Name & Address: Anne Richardson (# 151541)! Reem Salahi (#259711) Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick, LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91103 Tel: (626) 585-9600!Fax: (626) 577-7079 [Additional Counsel for Plaintiff on Attachment A]

IMANE BOUDLAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NUMBER

PLATIFF(S)
.
WALT DISNEY CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10

5

DEFENDANT(S).

SUMMONS

TO: DEFENDANT(S): WALT DISNEY CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you

must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached L’complaint LI

amended complaint

LI counterclaim LI cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer

or motion must be served on the plaintiffs attorney,

Anne Richardson

, whose address is

Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick LLP, 128 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Pasadena CA 91103 . If you fail to do so,

judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file

your answer or motion with the court.

Dated: AUG 13 2012

Clerk, U.S. District Court

By:

MARYNDAVI.

(Seal of the Court) ‘c

[Use 60 days f the defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee of the United States. A//owed
60 days by Rule /2(a) (3)].

CV-01 A (12/07)

SUMMONS

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 31 of 34 Page ID #:33
ATTACHMENT A to Summons in IMANE BOUDLAL vs. WALT DISNEY CORPORATION; and
DOES-b
Additional Counsel for Plaintiff IMANE BOUDLAL (continued from first page)
Email: arichardson@hadsellstormer.com reem@hadsellstormer. corn
Mark D. Rosenbaum, Esq. [S.B. #59940] ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5000 Facsimile: (213) 977-5297 Email: mrosenbaum@aclu-sc.org

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 32 of 34 Page ID #:34
UNITED STAThL, DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT (Jr CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET

I (a) PLAINTIFFS (Check box if you are representing yourself El) IMANE BOUDLAL

DEFENDANTS WALT DISNEY CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10

(b) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number. If you are representing yourself provide same.)
Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick, LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Pasadena, Califomia 91103 Tel: (626) 585-9600/Fax: (626) 577-7079 [Counsel cönt. on Attachment A]

Attorneys (If Known)
Anne Richardson, Esq. (SB. # 151541); arichardson@hadsellstorrner.com Reem Salahi, Esq. (SB. # 25971 1); reem@hadsellstormer.com Mark D. Rosenbaum, Esq. (S.B. #59940); mrosenbaumaclu-sc.org

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)

El I U.S. Government Plaintiff

f’3 Federal Question (U.S.
Government Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES - For Diversity Cases Only (Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant.)

Citizen of This State

PTF DEF El I El I Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in this State

PTF DEF El 4 El 4

El 2 U.S. Government Defendant El 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship Citizen of Another State of Parties in Item III)

El 2 El 2 Incorporated and Principal Place El 5 El 5 of Business in Another State

IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country El 3 El 3 Foreign Nation

El 6 El 6

‘l Original

El 2 Removed from

Proceeding

State Court

V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

El 3 Remanded from El 4 Reinstated or El 5 Transferred from another district (specify):

Appellate Court

Reopened

JURY DEMAND: l’Yes El No (Check ‘Yes’ only if demanded in complaint.)

El 6 Multi- El 7 Appeal to District

District

Judge from

Litigation

Magistrate Judge

CLASS ACTION under F.R.C.P. 23: El Yes INo

‘MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: S over $75,000

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)
Title VII (42 USC §2000 e-2(a)), Cal Govt Code § 12940 Harassment & Discrimination on Basis of Religion, National Origin & Color
VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only.)

OTIERSTATUTES

CONTCT

El 400 State Reapportionment El 110 Insurance

PERSONAL INJURY

El 410 Antitrust

El 120 Marine

El310 Airplane

El 430 Banks and Banking

El 130 Miller Act

El 315 Airplane Product

El 450 Commerce/ICC

El 140 Negotiable Instrument

Rates/etc.

El 150 Recovery of

El 460 Deportation

Overpayment &

El 470 Racketeer Influenced

Enforcement of

and Corrupt

Judgment

Organizations

El 151 Medicare Act

El 480 Consumer Credit

El 152 Recovery of Defaulted

El 490 Cable/Sat TV

Student Loan (ExcI.

El 810 Selective Service

Veterans)

El 850 Securities/Commodities/ El 153 Recovery of

Exchange

Overpayment of

El 875 Customer Challenge 12

Veteran’s Benefits

USC 3410

El 160 Stockholders’ Suits

El 890 Other Statutory Actions El 190 Other Contract

El 891 Agricultural Act

El 195 Contract Product

Liability El 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander El 330 Fed. Employers’
Liability El 340 Marine El 345 Marine Product
Liability El 350 Motor Vehicle El 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability El 360 Other Personal
Injury El 362 Personal Injury-
Med Malpractice El 365 Personal Injury-

El 892 Economic Stabilization

Liability

Product Liability

Act

El 196 Franchise

El 368 Asbestos Personal

El 893 Environmental Matters

REAL PROPERTY

Injury Produci

El 894 Energy Allocation Act El 210 Land Condemnation

Liability

El 895 Freedom of Info. Act El 220 Foreclosure

IMMIGRATION

El 900 Appeal of Fee Determi El 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment El 462 Naturalization

nation Under Equal Access to Justice El 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

El 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability
J 290 All Other Real Property

El 463 El 465

Application Habeas CorpusAlien Detainee Other Immigration Actions

TORTS.. .

. PRTONP

LABOR

PERSONAL PROPERTY

PETITIONS El 510 Motions to

El 710 Fair Labor Standards Act

El 370 Other Fraud

Vacate Sentence El 720 Labor/Mgmt.

El 371 Truth in Lending

Habeas Corpus

Relations

El 380 Other Personal El 530 General

El 730 Labor/Mgmt.

Property Damage El 535 Death Penalty

Reporting &

El 385 Property Damage El 540 Mandamus/

Disclosure Act

Product Liability

Other

El 740 Railway Labor Act

BANKRUPTCY El 550 Civil Rights

El 790 Other Labor

El 422 Appeal 28 USC El 555 Prison Condition

Litigation

158

FORFEITURE I El 791 EmpI. Ret. Inc.

El 423 Withdrawal 28

PENALTY

Security Act

USC 157

El 610 Agriculture

PROPERTY RIGHTS

CIVIL RIGHTS El 441 Voting
I442 Employment
El 443 Housing/Acco
mmodations El 444 Welfare El 445 American with
Disabilities -

El 620 Other Food & El 820 Copyrights

Drug

El 830 Patent

El 625 Drug Related El 840 Trademark

Seizure of

SOCIAL SECURITY

Property 21 USC El861 HIA(l3951f)

881

El 862 Black Lung (923)

El 630 Liquor Laws

El 863 DIWC/DIWW

El 640 R.R. & Truck

(405(g))

Employment El 650 Airline Regs El 446 American with El 660 Occupational

El 864 SSID Title XVI El 865 RSI (405(g))

Disabilities Other El 440 Other Civil

Safety /Health El 690 Other

FEDERAL TAX SUITS El 270 Taxes (U.S. Plsintiff
or Defendant)

Rights

El 871 IRS-Third Party 26

USC 7609

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Case Number:

¶ C 9 1’ — /3 0

AFTER COMPLETING THE FRONT SIDE OF FORM CV-71, COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW.

CV-7I (05/08)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page l.of 2

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 33 of 34 Page ID #:35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET

V1II(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? l’No LI Yes If yes, list case number(s):
VlIl(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? t”No LI Yes If yes, list case number(s):

Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case: (Check all boxes that apply) LI A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or
LI B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or LI C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by differentjudges; or LI D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, and one of the factors identified above in a, bore also is present.

IX. VENUE: (When completing the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.)

(a) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than Califomia; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides. LI Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff. If this box is checked, go to item (b).

County in this District:*

California County outside of this District: State, if other than California: or Foreign Country

Orange County

(b) List the County in this District; Califomia County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides. LI Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named defendant. f this box is checked, go to item (c).

County in this Diatrict:*

Califomia County outside of this District; State, if other than California: or Foreign Country

Los Angeles County

(c) List the County in this District; Califomia County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose. Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved.

County in this District:*

California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country

Orange County

* Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Counties Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the trac’ land involved

X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PRO PER):

(Z_—Q_€

Date August 10, 2012

Notice to Counsel/Parties: The CV-7 I (JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-I is not filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases: Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action

861

HIA

All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended.

Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the

program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b))

862

BL

All claims for “Black Lung” benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

(30 U.S.C. 923)

863

DIWC

All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as

amended; plus all claims filed for child’s insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))

863

DIWW

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security

Act, as amended: (42 U.S.C. 405(g))

864

SSID

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security

Act, as amended.

865

RSI

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42

U.S.C. (g))

CV-71 (05/08)

,

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 2 of 2

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 34 of 34 Page ID #:36
ATTACHMENT A to Civil Cover Sheet in IMANE BOUDLAL vs. WALT DISNEY
CORPORATION; and DOES-b
Additional Counsel for Plaintiff IMANE BOUDLAL (continued from first page)
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5000 Facsimile: (213) 977-5297

 </s> ORIGINAL Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:50

1

Mark D. Rosenbaum, Esq. [S.B. #59940] ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

2 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, California 90017

3 Telephone: (213) 977-5000

Facsimile: (213) 977-5297 4 Email: mrosenbaum@aclu-sc.org

5 Anne Richardson, Esq. [S.B. #151541]

6 Reem Salahi, Esq. [S.B. #259711]

HADSELL STORMER

7 RICHARDSON & RENICK LLP

8

128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103

9 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079

10 Email: arichardson@hadsellstormer.com

reem@hadsellstormer.com 11

12 Attorneys for Plaintiff IMANE BOUDLAL
13

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

r'\\~/)1''1\ .Y\

16

17 IMANE BOUDLAL,

18

Plaintiff,

19

vs.

20 THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY,
21 WALT DISNEY PARKS AND

22

RESORTS U.S., INC., and DOES 1-
10,'

23

Defendants.

24

25

Case No: SA CV 12-1306 DOC (ANx)
[Assigned to the Honorable David O. Carter - Courtroom 9D]
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
1. Violation of Title VII's Prohibition of Discrimination and Harassment in Employment on the Basis of Religion, National Origin and Color and Failure to Remedy and Prevent Harassment (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a))

26

2. Violation of the California Fair

27

Employment and Housing Act's

Prohibition of Harassment in 28

1

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:51

1

Employment on the Basis of Religious Creed, National Origin and

2

Color (Cal. Gov't Code §

3

129400)(1))

4 3. Violation of the California Fair

5

Employment and Housing Act's

6

Prohibition of Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of

7

Religious Creed (Cal. Gov't Code §

8

12940(a))

9

4. Failure to Remedy and Prevent

Discrimination and Harassment (Cal.

10

Gov't Code § 12940(k))

11

5. Wrongful Termination in Violation

12

of Public Policy

13

6. Negligent Retention and Supervision 14

15

7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional

16

Distress

17

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18 1+-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---1

19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26
27 28

2

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:52

1

Ie INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

2 1. Imane Boudlal, the plaintiff in this case, is a 28 year old naturalized United

3 States citizen of Moroccan origin and an adherent of the Muslim faith. On or

4 about April 12, 2008, she began working as a hostess at the Storytellers Cafe in the

5 Grand Californian Hotel and Spa, part of the complex operated by The Walt

6 Disney Company and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. (collectively

7 "Disney" or "Defendants") in Anaheim, California.

8 2. From early on in her employment, Ms. Boudlal suffered from repeated

9 ethnic and religious slurs from her co-workers, which she reported to management.

10 Among other things, she was called a "terrorist," "camel," and "Kunta Kinte," the

11 slave from the famous book Roots by Alex Haley. Ms. Boudlal's co-workers also

12 mocked her by stating, among other things, that Arabs are terrorists, that she

13 speaks the terrorist language and that she was trained to make bombs. Ms. Boudlal

14 repeatedly reported the harassment to her managers, who admitted there was a

15 problem, but who never took any action. On most occasions, Ms. Boudlal' s

16 managers merely deflected the complaints by stating that it would take time to

17 change things. Finally, one of the managers told her that she needed to stop

18 complaining.

19 3. As part of her Muslim faith, it is Ms. Boudlal' s sincere religious belief that

20 for her, the wearing of the hijab, sometimes referred to as a headscarf or veil, is

21 commanded by the QUI" an, the sacred book of Islam. The term hijab, translated as

22 "cover," "curtain," or "veil," connotes the Islamic mandate of modesty and is

23 regarded by much of the female Muslim population as an essential element of

24 virtue and religiosity. To unveil Muslim women who have chosen to wear a hijab

25 is an act of intolerance forcibly requiring disavowal of and disrespect to their most

26 fundamental religious beliefs.

27 4. In June 2010, after two years of working at Disney, Ms. Boudlal determined

28 that she would permanently wear a hijab so as to act faithfully in accord with her

3

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:53
1 religious beliefs. At about this time, Ms. Boudlal asked her supervisors for 2 permission to wear the hijab in the course of her work. It was her intent in 3 particular to begin wearing the hijab at work by the beginning of Ramadan, the 4 Muslim holy month of fasting, which began on August 11, 2010. After a nearly 5 two month delay, the managers denied her request, stating that wearing the hijab in 6 her current position violated Disney's "look" policy. The managers stated that if 7 Ms. Boudlal wore a hijab, it would negatively affect patrons' experiences at the 8 Storytellers Cafe. 9 5. Instead, Disney gave Ms. Boudlal an ultimatum that if she insisted on 10 wearing a hijab while continuing to work for Disney: (1) she could either be 11 stationed in the rear of the restaurant where she would have no contact with or 12 exposure to customers or (2) she could wear several large hats of various colors on 13 top of the hijab, which no one else at the Cafe was required to wear (or did wear). 14 Disney managers told Ms. Boudlal that if she refused these options, they would 15 terminate her employment. When Ms. Boudlal refused, explaining that she found 16 these options humiliating and an infringement of her religious beliefs, Disney 17 removed her from the Cafe's schedule and discharged her from further 18 employment. 19 6. Disney maintained its position despite the fact that Ms. Boudlal' s hostess 20 position did not require that she wear the costume of any Disney character, but 21 rather a uniform as won1 by other wait staff. l'v1s. Boudlal repeatedly sought to find 22 a compromise, including offering to wear a hijab matching the colors of her 23 uniform and even bearing a Disney logo. All her compromise offers were rejected 24 out of hand by Disney management. Disney did not seek to enforce its "look" 25 policy against other hosts or hostesses at the Storytellers Cafe who visibly 26 displayed tattoos, crosses, and other religious insignia or wore their hair or did 27 their nails in an ostentatious and impermissible manner. 28 7. In enacting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress recognized
4

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:54

1 that America is a nation founded on the credo of religious, racial and national

2 origin tolerance and therefore made it unlawful for an employee:

3

(l)to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against

4

any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,

5

or privileges of employment, because of such individual's ...

6

color, religion ... or national origin; or

7

(2)to limit, segregate, or classify his employees '" in any way which

8

would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment

9

opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an

10

employee, because of such individual's ... color, religion .... or

11

national origin.

12 In violation of Ms. Boudlal's rights under Title VII on the basis of her religion,

13 national origin and color, Disney failed to provide her with a working environment

14 free of unlawful harassment and refused to provide a reasonable accommodation

15 for her sincerely held religious belief that wearing a hijab is required by her faith

16 and by providing favorable treatment to similarly situated persons outside her

17 protected class. Disney's treatment of Ms. Boudlal fostered the unmistakable

18 message that Disney both tolerated and encouraged the harassment which she

19 suffered. California law similarly protects employees against discrimination and

20 harassment on the basis of religion, national origin and color.

~ ') 11

TT
•••

TTT~TC:<Tl>T£",,'T'Tfll".T
.JU~~V.~ • • V l "

A l\,.TTl> .M.l"...,

"Pl\,.TTTP l'.bl"U.b

22 8. This lawsuit for damages and injunctive relief challenges Disney's failure to

23 timely and effectively prevent and remedy harassment of Imane Boudlal based on

24 her religion, national origin and color as well as Disney's refusal to provide

25 reasonable accommodations for Ms. Boudlal' s practice and observance of her

26 religion, in violation of the laws of the United States. This Court has subject

27 matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, because the cause of

28 action asserted arises under federal law, namely 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

5

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:55

1 Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental

2 jurisdiction for state law claims made under Cal. Gov't. Code § 12940, because

3 such claims stem from part of the same case or controversy arising from a common

4 nucleus of operative fact.

5 9. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

6 committed within the County of Orange in State of California which is within the

7 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of

8 California. Venue is therefore proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

9

III. PARTIES

10 10. Plaintiff Imane Boudlal is a native of Morocco and a 28 year old naturalized

11 citizen of the United States. Ms. Boudlal has adhered to the Muslim faith for her

12 entire life. It is her sincerely held belief that wearing a hijab in public is required

13 by her faith. 14 11. Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts

15 U.S., Inc., and Does 1-10 ("Disney" or "Defendants") at all relevant time

16 conducted business within the County of Orange, California. Defendant The Walt

17 Disney Company is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Burbank,

18 California, It has four divisions: Studio Entertainment, Consumer Products, Media

19 Networks, and Parks and Resorts. Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, U.S.,

20 Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and its principal place of business is in Florida. It

21 owns and operates the Storytellers Cafe at the Grand Californian Hotel and Spa in

22 Anaheim, California. At all relevant times, the Storytellers Cafe has had more than

23 fifteen employees.

24 12. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and legal capacities of the Defendants

25 sued here as DOES 1 through 10 and, therefore, sues those Defendants by such

26 fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend her complaint to allege their true names and

27 capacities when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes,

28 and on this basis alleges, that each DOE Defendant is in some way legally

6

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:56

1 responsible for the acts, omissions, and damages alleged here to have been caused

2 by each remaining Defendant.

3

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4 13. In April 2008, Disney hired Imane Boudlal as a hostess at the Storytellers

5 Cafe in the Grand Californian Hotel and Spa, part of the Disney complex in

6 Anaheim, California.

7 14. Ms. Boudlal is a practicing Muslim of Moroccan origin and a naturalized

8 citizen of the United States.

9

Hostile Work Environment

10 15. Beginning in the summer of2008, Ms. Boudlal became the subject of insults

11 and epithets on the basis of her religion, national origin and color by her co-

12 workers and supervisors.

13 16. For a period of over two years from approximately July 2008 to August

14 2010, Ms. Boudlal's co-workers, including Sandra Acosta, and supervisors,

15 including Jesus Serrano, Brian Cardenas, and Jaymee Koymoon, called her

16 derogatory and discriminatory slurs. On a weekly, ifnot daily basis, Ms. Boudlal's

17 co-workers and supervisors would taunt her calling her such names as "camel,"

18 "terrorist," "bitch," and "Kunta Kinte," the slave from the famous book Roots by

19 Alex Haley. Ms. Boudlal was greatly pained by the name calling and repeatedly

20 asked her co-workers and supervisors to stop, to no avail.

22 her that Arabs are terrorists, that she speaks the terrorist language, that she is 23 trained to make bombs, that she gets scanned by security wherever she goes, that 24 she escaped from her family, that people from her country bomb the soccer field 25 when they don't win games, that she learned how to make bombs at the mosque 26 and that she not kill a co-worker's boyfriend ("please don't kill my boyfriend! 27 Terrorist! !"), to name a few. 28 18. In an effort to end the harassment, Ms. Boudlal complained on numerous

7

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 29 Page ID #:57

1 occasions to her managers in writing and orally. Her written statements included:

2

a. In July 2008, Ms. Boudlal provided a written statement to Manager

3

Marissa Hermosa complaining of the name calling, harassment and

4

hostile work environment. Ms. Hermosa never followed up with Ms.

5

Boudlal to inform her of any corrective actions taken by Disney and

6

the harassment continued.

7

b. In May 2010, Ms. Boudlal provided a written statement to Manager

8

Karun Kapata highlighting the hostile work environment and

9

harassment that she was experiencing. Mr. Kapata never followed up

10

with Ms. Boudlal to inform her of any corrective actions taken by

11

Disney and the harassment continued.

12

c. On July 27,2010, Ms. Boudlal provided a written statement to

13

Manager Bryan Maroun reiterating the hostility and harassment she

14

was experiencing. In her statement, Ms. Boudlal noted that her co-

15

workers were making fun of her based on' her race and religion and

16

that they called her "Kunta" and "terrorist." Mr. Maroun never

17

followed up with Ms. Boudlal to inform her of any corrective actions

18

taken by Disney and the harassment continued.

19

d. On August 11, 2010, Ms. Boudlal provided a written statement to

20

Manager James Nghiem with further details of harassment based on

21

religion, national origin and color. In her statement, l\1s. Boudlal

22

noted that her coworker Sandra Acosta told Ms. Boudlal, "Look

23

you[r] family are seating on that side" referring to an African

24

American family and that her supervisor Jaymee Bryan called Ms.

25

Boudlal "Kunta" and that those and other comments occurred "at least

26

once a week." Ms. Boudlal also detailed other days when she

27

provided her managers with written complaints. Mr. Nghiem never

28

followed up with Ms. Boudlal to inform her of any corrective actions

8

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 29 Page ID #:58

1

taken by Disney and the harassment continued.

2 19. In addition, Ms. Boudlal verbally complained to her managers James

3 Towning, Bryan Maroun, Karun Kaputa, Marissa Hermosa, James Nghiem, Erin

4 Truax, and Mike Ashraft from July 2008 to the time of her termination. While Ms.

5 Boudlal' s managers admitted that the employees' actions were inappropriate, they

6 failed to take any corrective action and merely deflected responsibility by

7 informing Ms. Boudlal that she "just misunderstood [her] co-workers" and that "it

8 will take time to change things." Finally, one of the managers told her that she

9 needed to stop complaining and any future complaints needed to be made only to

10 Manager Bryan Maroun.

11 20. At no point during Ms. Boudlal's employment was she informed that any

12 corrective action was taken. Nor was Ms. Boudlal notified that her harassers were

13 to be reprimanded or sanctioned for their actions. Indeed, Ms. Boudlal continued

14 to experience harassment until the time of her termination.

15

Ms. Boudlal's Decision to Wear a Hijab

16 21. Like many young Muslim women, Ms. Boudlal has given considerable

17 thought and study to questions about what it means to be a devout religious person

18 of her faith. Part of that inquiry concerned the decision to wear a hijab

19 permanently and irreversibly, in both her private and public life. During 2009, Ms.

20 Boudlal determined that Islam required that she wear a hijab in public. The only

21 exception she made to this practice was for her work for Disney, as she feared that

22 Disney would terminate her employment and she would lose necessary income.

23 As consequence, Ms. Boudlal would remove her hijab in Disney's parking lot

24 before entering the Cafe. This decision increasingly caused her to feel that she was

25 unfaithful to a core tenet of her religion by living a double life as to her beliefs, and

26 in June 2010 she therefore determined that she could not continue as a religious

27 Muslim by removing her hijab in public, regardless of place or consequence. Ms.

28 Boudlal therefore sought permission from Disney to wear her hijab in her position

9

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 29 Page ID #:59

1 as hostess at the Cafe.

2 22. At no point did Disney or any of its managers or employees question the

3 sincerity of Ms. Boudlal's religious practice or beliefs, or her decision to wear a

4 hijab in the course of her work at Disney as a sincere expression of this practice

5 and these beliefs.

6

The Religious Significance of the Hijab

7 23. The practice of Muslim women covering their bodies in the presence of non-

8 familial men has deep roots in Islam. Qur' anic passages have long supported a

9 belief among many Muslim women prevalent through the ages and widespread in

10 many parts of the Islamic world today, that the practice of veiling is the fulfillment

11 of religious duty. Ms. Boudlal is an adherent of this belief.

12 24. To many Muslim women, then, beginning the practice of hijab is a step of

13 enormous personal and spiritual import. It is common practice for a Muslim

14 woman to wait to wear the headscarf on a permanent and irreversible basis until a

15 point in her life when she believes she has attained a level of religious piety

16 signified by its wearing. This was the case for Ms. Boudlal. As a young person,

17 she imagined herself one day ready to practice hijab, but did not feel spiritually yet

18 prepared to do so. Growing up, she had observed her faith in other ways she

19 believed did not fully express the meaning and commands of Islam to her,

20 including wearing the hijab during the holy month of Ramadan.

21

Tile Ston/tellers Cafe and Disney's "Look" Policy

22 25. The Storytellers Cafe serves an all-you-can-eat buffet-style breakfast, and

23 offers pizza, sandwiches and salads for lunch and dinner. It is described on the

24 Disney website as celebrating the age-old theme of storytelling. Disney characters

25 such as chipmunks Chip 'n' Dale visit the restaurant floor to interact with

26 customers. However, the restaurant's wait and host staff do not wear period or

27 character costumes. Instead, these employees wear uniforms similar to those worn

28 at many other restaurants, consisting of dark pants, a white shirt, and a gold vest.

10

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 29 Page ID #:60
1 Disney has claimed that the restaurant's costume and decorations reflect an early 2 19th century America theme, but the requirement that waitresses wear pants, 3 among other facts, reflect that the stated theme is not applied rigorously, given that 4 no woman in 19th century America wore pants at work. 5 26. Disney states that it expects that all hourly paid personnel working for 6 Disney Parks and Resorts to adhere to the company's "look" policy. It states too 7 that its employees must comply with the policy "[n]o matter where [they] work or 8 what [their] role is," because "anytime [they] are in a public area, [they] are 'on 9 stage. '" 10 27. However, the "look" policy is not applied at all or consistently at the 11 Storytellers Cafe. For instance, although the policy prohibits visible tattoos, 12 artificial hair that does not look natural, hair dyeing or highlighting that does not 13 create a uniform look over the whole head, and fingernails that exceed one-fourth 14 of an inch, each of these requirements has been routinely violated by multiple 15 employees of the Cafe without repercussion. Christian employees observing Ash 16 Wednesday were permitted by Disney to work with a cross of ashes on their 17 foreheads despite the fact that this too facially violates the "look" policy. 18 28. With respect to "headwear," Disney'S "look" policy provides that "[t]he only 19 hats and sun visors that may be worn are those issued by Costuming as part of the 20 costume." However, the "look" policy permits employees to request exceptions 21 for reiigious beliefs. 22 Disney's Refusal of Ms. Boudlal's Request for Religious Accommodation 23 29. In June 2010, Ms. Boudlal had been wearing the headscarfin all public 24 places at all times, except for her workplace, for approximately eight months, and 25 had grown deeply uncomfortable living a double life respecting her religious and 26 spiritual beliefs. Accordingly, Ms. Boudlal spoke with Ms. Erin Truax, Employee 27 Relations Manager for Southern California, and requested an exception to Disney'S 28 "look" policy to wear the headscarf.
11

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 29 Page ID #:61
1 30. Ms. Truax said that she needed to talk to "corporate" and would get back to 2 Ms. Boudlal in a few weeks. She did not do so. Ms. Boudlal therefore called Ms. 3 Truax repeatedly over the course of the next two months to obtain a response to her 4 request, left numerous phone messages for her. She was twice told that Ms. Truax 5 was on vacation. Ms. Truax never responded to these calls. 6 31. Because Ms. Boudlal received no response from Ms. Truax regarding her 7 request for religious accommodation, she was left with no alternative but to put a 8 complaint in writing and she thereafter spoke with an employee relations 9 representative in Florida. Only then did Ms. Truax set up an appointment with Ms. 10 Boudlal to discuss her request to wear a headscarfwhile on the job. The meeting 11 took place on July 30, 2010. At this meeting, Ms. Truax informed Ms. Boudlal 12 that her request for accommodation was approved and that Disney would provide 13 Ms. Boudlal with a scarf to match her uniform of green slacks, white blouse, and 14 yellow vest. Ms. Boudlal stated that it was very important for her to be able to 15 wear the hijab by the beginning of Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting, which 16 began on August 11,2010 that year. Ms. Boudlal and Ms. Truax scheduled a time 17 to go to the Disney costume department on August 9,2010 to obtain measurements 18 in order to be fitted for a head scarf. However, Disney managers unilaterally 19 rescheduled the meeting to August 12, 2010, after Ramadan had begun. 20 32. On August 12,2010, Ms. Boudlal was accordingly fitted for a head scarf by 21 the costuming director at Disney in Atiaheim. !'v1s. Boudlal asked hov/ long she 22 would have to wait before she could wear a head scarf at work. Ms. Truax replied 23 that because the measurements would have to be sent to Florida and thereafter 24 corporate approval of a particular head scarf was required, she could not provide 25 any estimate of a date. Ms. Truax also stated that this was the first time Disney 26 had ever received such a request. 27 33. The statement by Ms. Truax as to Disney's past history was in error. At 28 least two prior actions on behalf of female Muslim employees had been brought
12

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 29 Page ID #:62
1 against Disney and settled. 2 34. In the same conversation, Ms. Boudlal asked Ms. Truax if she could wear 3 her hijab in the interim until Disney made a final decision. Ms. Truax refused this 4 request and told Ms. Boudlal that Disney would need more time. 5 35. Ms. Truax told Ms. Boudlal that she could wear her hijab if she transferred 6 to the bakery, where she would work "in the back" unseen by customers. But Ms. 7 Truax added that there were many experienced applicants in line for the bakery 8 position and that it would be difficult for Ms. Boudlal to in fact secure the position. 9 Indeed, the time period to apply for the bakery position had already passed. 10 36. On Sunday, August 15,2010, Ms. Boudlal arrived at work for a 6:30 a.m. to 11 1:00 p.m. shift. As she had received no further response from Ms. Truax or from 12 anyone at Disney, she wore her own hijab. Her manager, Mike Ashraft, stated to 13 her that he did not have a problem with her wearing the hijab, and Ms. Boudlal 14 proceeded to work as hostess without incident. 15 37. Some three hours later, at about 9:30 a.m., Ms. Boudlal was called into Mr. 16 Ashraft's office. Mr. Ashraft and James Nghiem, another manager, then told her 17 that she could not wear the hijab because it violated Disney's "look" policy and 18 they were concerned about how her wearing a hijab would impact the experience 19 of guests at Disney. Ms. Boudlal responded that her request had been approved on 20 July 30 and that it was important to her religious belief to wear a hijab, especially 21 as Ramadan had begun. 22 38. Mr. Ashraft and Mr. Nghiem stated that she had only two options: she could 23 wait until Disney provided her with a hat or something to cover her hijab or she 24 could work in the rear of the Cafe out of sight of the guests. Otherwise, they stated 25 that she woqld be required to leave the Cafe without pay. Ms. Boudlal rejected the 26 options as an infringement of her sincerely held religious beliefs. The managers 27 thereafter sent Ms. Boudlal home about three hours before the end of her shift. 28 39. On the following day, August 16,2010, Ms. Boudlal arrived for her assigned
13

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 29 Page ID #:63
1 shift, beginning at 7:30 a.m. She was wearing her hijab. Her manager, Bryan 2 Maroun, asked to speak with her and told her that the hijab did not comply with the 3 Disney"look." Mr. Maroun stated that she had only two options: she could work 4 "backstage" away from customers and wear her hijab or she could return to her 5 hostess position without her hijab until a hat or something to cover her hijab was 6 provided to her. Ms. Boudlal rejected these options as an infringement of her 7 sincerely held religious beliefs. Mr. Maroun thereafter sent Ms. Boudlal home. 8 40. During the time when Mr. Maroun was directing Ms. Boudlal to leave the 9 Cafe, one hostess was wearing her hair in a manner that did not comply with the 10 Disney "look" policy and tattooing on her body was visible. 11 41. On the following day, August 17,2010, Ms. Boudlal arrived for her assigned 12 shift, beginning at 2:00 p.m. She was wearing her hijab. Her managers, Mr. 13 Ashraft, Mr. Nghiem and Mr. Maroun, told her that the hijab did not comply with 14 the Disney "look" policy. Ms. Boudlal replied that employees at the Cafe 15 violated the "look" policy and received no disciplinary treatment. Ms. Boudlal 16 then asked how long it would be before Disney provided an accommodation for 17 her hijab. The managers replied that they did not know. The managers thereafter 18 sent Ms. Boudlal home. 19 Ms. Boudlal's Continuing Efforts to Find a Reasonable Accommodation 20 42. Ms. Boudlal met with Disney officials after August 17 to attempt to find a 21 reasonabie accommodation to her religious practice and belief requiring her to 22 wear a hijab. Disney officials offered her only the option of wearing a hat over her 23 hijab. No other employee at the Storytellers Cafe wears a hat. Ms. Boudlal 24 rejected the option as an infringement of her sincerely held religious beliefs. 25 43. On August 31, 2010, Ms. Boudlal met with Disney officers. These officers 26 offered her only the option of wearing a multi-colored head scarf made of the same 27 material as her uniform vest under a hat made of the same material. No other 28 employee at the Storytellers Cafe wears a hat. Ms. Boudlal rejected the option as
14

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 29 Page ID #:64
1 an infringement of her sincerely held religious beliefs, though she offered to wear 2 alone the head scarf designed by Disney. Disney officers rejected this compromise 3 and insisted that Ms. Boudlal wear a hat at all times. 4 44. Disney thereafter informed Ms. Boudlal that she could work elsewhere in 5 the Disney complex, but in all cases "behind the scenes" and away from public 6 view. Ms. Boudlal rejected this option as an infringement of her sincerely held 7 religious beliefs. 8 45. Prior to Disney's failure to accommodate Ms. Boudlal's request to wear 9 hijab, Ms. Boudlal had requested a religious accommodation to break her fast. In 10 the summer of2008, Ms. Boudlal notified her manager Jeffrey (last name 11 unknown) that she would be fasting from sunrise to sunset during the Muslim holy 12 month of Ramadan. Ms. Boudlal requested that she be allowed to take her lunch 13 time break at approximately 7:30 p.m., at the time of sunset, in order to break her 14 fast and have a meal. Jeffrey denied the accommodation request noting that the 15 Cafe would be busy at that time and that she would need to wait until it slowed 16 down. Ms. Boudlal was forced to take a "restroom" break at sunset to eat a small 17 morsel of food to break her fast. If she was unable to take a "restroom" break, Ms. 18 Boudlal was forced to break her fast hours later. 19 . 46. Ms. Boudlal is no longer an active employee at Disney. Disney has not 20 offered Ms. Boudlal any hours or placed her on the work schedule since August 21 21,2010. Indeed, lYis. Boudlal hasn't worked at the Storyteller's Cafe since 22 August 15,2010, shortly after Ms. Boudlal rejected Disney's ultimatum to either 23 wait and wear a hat at all times or work "behind the scenes". 24 47. Ms. Boudlal was not provided a reasonable accommodation by Disney for 25 her sincerely held religious beliefs. But for the illegal and discriminatory action by 26 Disney, Ms. Boudlal would have been continuously employed at the Storytellers 27 Cafe. By virtue of her illegal termination, Ms. Boudlal has been disadvantaged in 28 future pursuit of employment.
15

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 29 Page ID #:65

1 48. On August 18, 2010, Ms Boudlal jointly filed a claim of national origin,

2 color and religious discrimination against Disney with the EEOC and DFEH.

3 49. Ms. Boudlal has exhausted her administrative remedies and received her

4 Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on August 8, 2012.

5

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

6

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

7 Violation of Title VII's Prohibition of Discrimination and Harassment in

8 Employment on the Basis of Religion, National Origin and Color and Failure

9

to Remedy and Prevent Harassment

10

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a))

11

[Plaintiff Against All Defendants]

12 50. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 49 of this Complaint as if fully

13 set forth herein.

14 51. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer:

15

(1) to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against

16

any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,

17

or privileges of employment, because of such individual's ...

18

color, religion ... or national origin; or

19

(2)to limit, segregate, or classify his employees ... in any way which

20

would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment

21

opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an

22

employee, because of such individual's ... color, religion .... or

23

national origin.

24 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Title VII defines religion to include "all aspects of

25 religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer

26 demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or

27 prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on

28 the conduct of the employer's business." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).

16

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 29 Page ID #:66
1 52. Title VII's prohibition on employment discrimination and harassment on the 2 basis of religion, national origin and color applies to all businesses with fifteen or 3 more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in 4 the current or preceding calendar year. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e. The Walt Disney 5 Company and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. generally and Storytellers 6 Cafe specifically have had more than fifteen employees at all relevant times. 7 53. In violation of Title VII, plaintiff Boudlal was subjected to offensive 8 comments and other abusive conduct that was severe and pervasive by both her 9 supervisors and co-workers based on her religion, national origin and color, 10 altering the conditions of her employment. The conduct was unreasonably abusive 11 and created an offensive and hostile work environment for plaintiff and for any 12 reasonable person in plaintiff s position. 13 54. In violation of Title VII, plaintiffs supervisors harassed plaintiff by calling 14 her discriminatory and derogatory slurs such as "camel," "terrorist" and "Kunta 15 Kinte." Plaintiffs supervisors also made discriminatory and derogatory comments 16 related to plaintiffs religion, national origin and color including that Arabs are 17 terrorists, that she speaks the terrorist language, that she is trained to make bombs, 18 and that she gets scanned by security wherever she goes. 19 55. In violation of Title VII, Disney's management failed to take prompt action 20 to remedy and prevent the harassment by plaintiffs supervisors and co-workers. 21 Defendants further failed to train, supervise, and monitor their employees and 22 agents. Indeed, Ms. Boudlal's managers deflected responsibility by informing 23 plaintiff that she "just misunderstood [her] co-workers" and that "it will take time 24 to change things." Finally, one of the managers told her that she needed to stop 25 complaining. 26 56. Defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment based on 27 religion, national origin and color fostered, created and encouraged an environment 28 where such harassment was condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned and/or
17

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 29 Page ID #:67
1 ratified. 2 57. Defendant Disney is vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of its agents and 3 employees directly and/or under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Equal 4 Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines a supervisor as someone 5 with the power to direct the employee's daily work activities. Plaintiffs harassing 6 supervisors directed Ms. Boudlal's daily work activities, amongst other roles. 7 58. PlaintiffBoudlal continuously complained to Disney's management about 8 the harassing conduct of her supervisors in writing and orally from approximately 9 July 2008 to the time of her termination, yet defendant Disney failed to take 10 decisive steps to end the misconduct. 11 59. In violation of Title VII, defendant Disney discriminated against Ms. 12 Boudlal on the basis of her religion by refusing to provide a reasonable 13 accommodation for her sincerely held religious belief that wearing a hijab is 14 required by her faith. 15 60. In violation of Title VII, defendant Disney also discriminated against Ms. 16 Boudlal on the basis of her religion by removing her from the schedule and not 17 permitting her to return to work in her current position if wearing her hijab, while 18 providing more favorable treatment of similarly situated persons outside her 19 protected class and through other acts or omissions giving rise to an inference of 20 discrimination. 21 61. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' unlawfJI conduct, r\'1s. 22 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but 23 not limited to, emotional distress, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered 24 and continues to suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is 25 thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at 26 trial. 27 62. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was 28 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were
18

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 29 Page ID #:68

1 acting in violation of federal and state law, andlor with a willful and conscious

2 disregard for plaintiffs rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

3 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

4

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5 - Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act's Prohibition

6 of Harassment in Employment on the Basis of Religious Creed, National

7

Origin and Color

8

(Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(j)(1))

9

[Plaintiff Against All Defendants]

10 63. PlaintiffBoudlal incorporates paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint as

11 if fully set forth herein.

12 64. California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) proscribes

13 employers from harassing an employee "because of ... religious creed, color,

14 national origin." Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(a).

15 65. Further, FEHA makes it unlawful for an employer that "knows or should

16 have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective

17 action." Id.

18 66. In violation ofFEHA, plaintiff Boudlal was subjected to offensive

19 comments and other abusive conduct based on her religion, national origin and

20 color by her supervisors and co-workers that was severe and pervasive, altering the

21 conditions of her employment. The conduct was unreasonably abusive and created

22 an offensive and hostile work environment for plaintiff and for any reasonable

23 person in plaintiffs position.

24 67. In violation ofFEHA, plaintiffs supervisors and co-workers harassed

25 plaintiffby calling her discriminatory and derogatory slurs such as "camel,"

26 "terrorist" and "Kunta Kinte." Plaintiffs supervisors and co-workers also made

27 discriminatory and derogatory comments related to plaintiffs religion, national

28 origin and color including that Arabs are terrorists, that she speaks the terrorist

19

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 29 Page ID #:69
1 language, that she is trained to make bombs, and that she gets scanned by security 2 wherever she goes. 3 68. Plaintiff Boudlal repeatedly complained to her managers about the harassing 4 conduct of her supervisors and co-workers in writing and orally from 5 approximately July 2008 to the time of her termination. 6 69. In violation of FEHA, Ms. Boudlal's managers failed to take prompt and 7 appropriate action to remedy and prevent the harassment of plaintiff by her 8 supervisors and co-workers. Indeed, Ms. Boudlal's managers deflected 9 responsibility by informing plaintiff that she 'just misunderstood [her] co-workers" 10 and that "it will take time to change things." Finally, one of the managers told her 11 that she needed to stop complaining. 12 70. Defendant Disney is strictly liable for the offensive and harassing conduct of 13 its supervisors. The FEHA defines a supervisor as someone with the power to 14 direct the employee's daily work activities as was the case with Ms. Boudlal's 15 supervIsors. 16 71. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' unlawful conduct, Ms. 17 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer einotional injuries, including, but 18 not limited to, emotional distress, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered 19 and continues to suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is 20 thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at 21 trial. 22 72. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was 23 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive andlor done with knowledge that they were 24 acting in violation of federal and state law, andlor with a willful and conscious 25 disregard for plaintiffs rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions. 26 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. 27 III 28 III
20

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 29 Page ID #:70

1

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

2 Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act's Prohibition

3

of Distrimination in Employment on the Basis of Religious Creed

4

(Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(a»

5

[Plaintiff Against All Defendants]

6 73. PlaintiffBoudlal incorporates paragraph 1 through 72 of this Complaint as if

7 fully set forth herein

8 74. California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes "it is an

9 unlawful employment practice ... [fJor an employer, because of the ... religious

10 creed ... of any person, ... to discriminate against the person in compensation or

11 in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(a).

12 75. Further, FEHA prohibits "an employer ... [from] discriminat[ing] against a

13 person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment

14 because of a conflict between the person's religious belief or observance and any

15 employment requirement, unless the employer ... demonstrates that it has

16 explored any available reasonable alternative means of accommodating the

17 religious belief or observance, including the possibilities of excusing the person

18 from those duties that conflict with his or her religious belief or observance or

19 permitting those duties to be performed at another time or by another person, but is

20 unable to reasonably accommodate the religious belief or observance without

21 undue hardship on the conduct of the business of the employer or other entity

22 covered by this part." Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(1).

23 76. FEHA's prohibition on discrimination in employment on the basis of

24 religious creed applies to businesses regularly employing five or more persons.

25 Cal. Gov't Code § 12926. The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Parks and

26 Resorts U.S., Inc. generally and Storytellers Cafe specifically have employed more

27 than five persons at all relevant times.

28 77. In violation of FEHA, defendant Disney discriminated against Ms. Boudlal

21

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 29 Page ID #:71

1 on the basis of her religious creed by removing her from the schedule and not

2 permitting her to return to work in her current position if wearing her hijab, while

3 providing more favorable treatment of similarly situated persons outside her

4 protected class and through other acts or omissions giving rise to an inference of

5 discrimination.

6 78. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' unlawful conduct, Ms.

7 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but

8 not limited to, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

9 suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled

10 to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

11 79. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was

12 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were

13 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious

14 disregard for plaintiff s rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

15 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

16

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

17

Failure to Remedy and Prevent Discrimination and Harassment

18

(Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(k»

19

[Plaintiff Against All Defendants]

20 80. PlaintiffBoudlal incorporates paragraph 1 through 79 of this Complaint as if

21 fuBy set forth herein.

22 81. FEHA requires employers to take "all reasonable steps necessary to prevent

23 discrimination and harassment from occurring." Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(k).

24 82. In violation ofFEHA, PlaintiffBoudlal was subjected to severe and

25 pervasive harassment and discrimination based on her religious creed, national

26 origin and color. Plaintiff Boudlal complained about the harassment and

27 discrimination to her managers on multiple occasions in writing and orally from

28 approximately July 2008 to the time of her termination.

22

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 29 Page ID #:72

1 83. In violation of FEHA, defendants failed to take all reasonable steps

2 necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment based on plaintiffs religious

3 creed, national origin and color. In addition, defendants failed to remedy such

4 discrimination and harassment when they realized and were informed that it was

5 occurring. Defendants further failed to train, supervise, and monitor their

6 employees and agents.

7 84. Indeed, Ms. Boudlal's managers deflected responsibility by informing

8 plaintiff that she "just misunderstood [her] co-workers" and that "it will take time

9 to change things." Finally, one of the managers told her that she needed to stop

10 complaining. Defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to prevent

11 discrimination and harassment based on religious creed, national origin and color

12 fostered, created and encouraged an environment where such discrimination and

13 harassment was condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned and/or ratified.

14 85. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' unlawful conduct, Ms.

15 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but

16 not limited to, emotional distress, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered

17 and continues to suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is

18 thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at

19 trial.

20 86. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was

21 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive andlor done with lulowledge that they \-vere

22 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious

23 disregard for plaintiff s rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

24 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

25

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26

Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

27

[Plaintiff Against All Defendants]

28 87. PlaintiffBoudlal incorporates paragraphs 1 through 86 of this Complaint as

23

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 29 Page ID #:73

1 if fully set forth herein.

2 88. For all the reasons set forth above, the conduct of defendants in not offering

3 Ms. Boudlal any hours or placing her on the work schedule since August 21, 2010

4 constituted termination. Such termination is contrary to public policy, as embodied

5 in the following laws, statutes and regulations, among others: all state and federal

6 statutes and regulations prohibiting discrimination and failure to accommodate

7 religion, including Title VII and the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

8 89. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' unlawful conduct, Ms.

9 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but

10 not limited to, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

11 suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled

12 to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

13 90. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was

14 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were

15 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious

16 disregard for plaintiff s rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

17 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

18

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

19

Negligent Retention and Supervision

20
L- •l ~~.1.

[Plaintiff Against All Defendants] .t.'l-a..m,',u• {n'{' n-noOUU-11la1l m• COlporateS paragrapuh s 11 tHh rougHh O7V{\ 01.f' tHhI'S r~omplla'mt as

22 if fully set forth herein.

23 92. Plaintiff Boudlal was subjected to severe and pervasive harassment and

24 discrimination based on her religious creed, national origin and color by her

25 supervisors and co-workers. Plaintiff Boudlal complained of the harassment and

26 discrimination to her managers on multiple occasions in writing and orally from

27 approximately July 2008 to the time of her termination.

28 93. Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In

24

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 29 Page ID #:74

1 failing to do so, defendants showed demonstrable negligence in the retention and

2 supervision of their employees resulting in a foreseeable harm on plaintiff.

3 Defendants' negligence created and encouraged an environment where such

4 discrimination and harassment was condoned, encouraged, tolerated, affirmatively

5 authorized and/or ratified.

6 94. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' unlawful conduct, Ms.

7 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but

8 not limited to, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

9 suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled

10 to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

11 95. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was

12 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were

13 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious

14 disregard for plaintiffs rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

15 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

16

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

17

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

18

[Plaintiff Against All Defendants]

19 96. Plaintiff Boudlal incorporates paragraphs 1 through 95 of this Complaint as

20 if fully set forth herein.

21 97. As described above, the conduct of defendants and their agents/employees

22 was outrageous and outside the normal scope of the employment relationship.

23 Specifically, defendants' harassment and discrimination toward plaintiff based on

24 religion, national origin and color, in violation federal and state law, constitute

25 conduct outside of the normal scope of the employment relationship and violative

26 of public policy.

27 98. Defendants knew that their conduct would result in plaintiffs severe

28 emotional distress, and said conduct was perpetrated by defendants with the intent

25

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 29 Page ID #:75

1 to inflict, or with reckless disregard of the probability of inflicting humiliation,

2 mental anguish, and severe emotional distress upon plaintiff. Such conduct did, in

3 fact, result in severe emotional distress on plaintiff.

4 99. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' unlawful conduct, Ms.

5 Boudlal has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional injuries, including, but

6 not limited to, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

7 suffer loss of earnings and other employment benefits. Plaintiff is thereby entitled

8 to general and compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

9 100. The conduct of defendants, through their agents, as described herein was

10 malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive and/or done with knowledge that they were

11 acting in violation of federal and state law, and/or with a willful and conscious

12 disregard for plaintiff s rights and for the deleterious consequences of their actions.

13 Consequently, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

14

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

15

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter

16 judgment in her favor:

17

(a) Declaring that the actions of Defendants described above constitute

18 harassment on the basis of religion or religious creed, national origin and color in

19 violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and

20 the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12940U)(I)

21 and 12940(k).

22

(b) Declaring that the actions of Defendants described above constitute

23 discrimination on the basis of religion or religious creed in violation of Title VII of

24 the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and the California Fair

25 Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12940(a) and 12940(1).

26

(c) Permanently enjoining Defendants and its directors, officers, agents, and

27 employees from enforcing its policy or practice of prohibiting wait or host staff

28 employees who are adherents of the Muslim faith from wearing hijabs while in

26

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 29 Page ID #:76

1 positions involving interaction with customers unless such hijabs are concealed by

2 a hat or other object.

3

(d) Training of Disney employees, supervisors and managers regarding

4 harassment and discrimination;

5

(e) Awarding Plaintiff applicable statutory, actual, and punitive damages

6 under each cause of action;

7

(£) Awarding Plaintiffher expenses, costs, fees, and other disbursements

8 associated with the filing and maintenance of this action, including reasonable

9 attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k), California Gov't Code

10 §12965, California Code ofCiv. Proc. §1021.5 and any other applicable provision

11 of law;

12

(g) Awarding such other equitable and further relief as the Court deems just

13 and proper.

14 15 Dated: September 11,2012

Respectfully submitted,

16 17 18 19 20 21
Dated: September 11, 2012 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
BByy:~:1~141vt1u4..v._ _t.:~!_ _ L~-L~L~_ _ ~ {)-1e_9L----_ _
Mark D. Rosenbaum Attorneys for Plaintiff IMANE BOUDLAL
Respectfully submitted,
HADSELL STORMER RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP
Byy::----t-.<&&u~u_!_._ _._L.:-.-_ ._.~ _ _ __
Anne Richardson Reem Salahi Attorneys for Plaintiff IMANE BOUDLAL

27

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 29 Page ID #:77

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

3

4 Dated: September 11, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

5

ACLU FOUNDATION OF

6

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

7 8

BY:._ _~_~ _D_ .__~~((fi//t;t-;-}-~-,-f--~-_-

9

Mark D. Rosenbaum

Attorneys for Plaintiff

10

IMANE BOUDLAL

11

12 Dated: September 11, 2012 13 14

Respectfully submitted,
HADSELL STORMER RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP

15 16

BY:ik=~

17

v Anne Richardson

Reem Salahi

18

Attorneys for Plaintiff

19

IMANE BOUDLAL

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 29 Page ID #:78

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

the

age

of

I am 18 and

empl not a

oyed in the county party' to the withm

of Los Ang action; my

ebluessm1 SetsasteadodfrCesaslifisor1n2i8a.

I N

am over . Fair

3 Oaks Avenue, Pasadena, California 91103.

4

On September 12,2012, I served the for~going document described as: FIR,ST

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES on the interested parties in this cause by

5 placing true and correct copies thereof in envelopes addressed as follows:

6 James A. Zapp; Esq.

7

Felicia A. DavIs, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP

8

515 South Flower Street Twenty-Fifth Floor

9

Los Angeles, California 90071-2228 Tel: (2f3) 683-6000

10

Fax: (213) 627-0705 Email: iameszapp(a)paulhastings.com

11 Email: felicIadavis(a)naulhastings.com

Attorneys for Defendants

12 XX BY E-MAIL

13

XX I served the above-mentioned document electronically on the parties listed at

the e-mail addresses above and to the best of my knowledge, the transmission was

14 complete and without error in that I did not receIve an electronic notification to the

contrary.

15

XX BYMAIL

16 XX I deposited such enveloRe in the mail at Pasadena, California. The envelope

17 was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.

18

I am readily' familiar with the firm's practice of collection and 'processing

correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited wIth U.S. postal

19 service on the same day wIth fostage thereon fully prepaid at Pasadena, California in the

ordinary course of busmess. am aware that on motion of the party served, service is

20 presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter crate IS more than one day
n-A-a.. rlni-a ",.f' rla~",,,,;i- -tA" 1"Y1a;1;1'1<l" thlC' <;Iffirl~:nTlt
Q.J.l,.\..ol UCU..\".I V.1. U\".lpv..:J~" .LV.!. J..lU"a..1J..1.J..1.5 .... J..1...., "",.£..£..1.'-1."'" Y .... "'.

21

Executed on September 12, 2012, at Pasadena, California.

22

(Federal) I declare that I am employ'ed in the office of a member of the bar of

23

this Court at whose dIrection the serve was made.

24 25

Bi~~

26

Declarant

27

28

 </s> Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 36 Filed 03/03/14 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:320

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 IMANE BOUDLAL,

CASE NO. SACV12-1306-DOC(ANx)

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

ORDER TO DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE [35]

14 THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, WALT DISNEY PARKS AND
15 RESORTS U.S., INC., and DOES 1-10,

Judge:

Hon. David O. Carter

16

Defendants.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER TO DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

Case 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN Document 36 Filed 03/03/14 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:321

1

ORDER

2

3

Based on the parties’ JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS ACTION WITH

4 PREJUDICE, and good cause appearing therefore, this Court hereby dismisses this

5 action, with prejudice.

6

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9 Dated: March 3, 2014 10

11 By:

12

__________________________________

13

Hon. David O. Carter

United States District Court Judge

14

15 Respectfully Submitted by:

16 JAMES A. ZAPP

17

FELICIA A. DAVIS PAUL HASTINGS LLP

18

19 By:
20

/s/ Felicia A. Davis FELICIA A. DAVIS

21 Attorneys for Defendants 22 THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY and
WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. 23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER TO DISMISS ACTION WITH

-1-

PREJUDICE

 </s> Case: 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN As of: 05/12/2014 02:58 AM PDT 1 of 5 (ANx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Southern Division − Santa Ana)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:12−cv−01306−DOC−AN

Imane Boudlal v. Walt Disney Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge David O. Carter Referred to: Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato Demand: $75,000 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Date Terminated: 03/03/2014 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Imane Boudlal

represented by Anne K Richardson Hadsell Stormer Richardson and Renick LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103−3664 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: arichardson@hadsellstormer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark D Rosenbaum ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: mrosenbaum@aclu−sc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Reem Salahi Hadsell Stormer Richardson and Renick LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 626−585−9600 Fax: 626−577−7079 Email: reem@hadsellstormer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Walt Disney Corporation TERMINATED: 09/13/2012
Defendant Does 1−10 TERMINATED: 02/28/2013 Defendant The Walt Disney Company

represented by Felicia A Davis Paul Hastings LLP 515 South Flower Street 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−683−6120 Fax: 213−996−3120 Email: feliciadavis@paulhastings.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN As of: 05/12/2014 02:58 AM PDT 2 of 5

James A Zapp Paul Hastings Janofsky &Walker 515 S Flower St, 25th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90071−2228 213−683−6000 Email: jameszapp@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felicia A Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc

represented by James A Zapp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felicia A Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/13/2012 08/13/2012 08/13/2012 08/13/2012 08/22/2012
09/05/2012 09/06/2012
09/13/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendants Does, Walt Disney Corporation. Case assigned to Judge David O. Carter for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato.(Filing fee $ 350 Fee Paid) Jury Demanded, filed by plaintiff Imane Boudlal.(dg) (dg). (Entered: 08/15/2012)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to defendant Walt Disney Corporation. (dg) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Imane Boudlal, (dg) (dg). (Entered: 08/15/2012)
3 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed.(dg) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
4 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Imane Boudlal, upon Defendant Walt Disney Corporation served on 8/15/2012, answer due 9/5/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Marsha L. Reed, Vice President − Governance Administration and Assistant Secretary in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons returned. (Richardson, Anne) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
5 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Initial Complaint filed by Defendant Walt Disney Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
6 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: Granting Stipulation Extending Time for Defendant Walt Disney Corporation to Respond to Initial Complaint to Permit Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint 5 . Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. shall have twenty−one (21) days from the date of service of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to answer, plead or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint. (mt) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Does 1−10, The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc; Party Walt Disney Corporation terminated. Amending Complaint − (Discovery 1 ; filed by plaintiff Imane Boudlal (rla) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/17/2012: # 1 SUMMONS ISSUED) (rla). (Entered: 09/17/2012)

Case: 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN As of: 05/12/2014 02:58 AM PDT 3 of 5

09/13/2012 09/13/2012 10/03/2012 10/03/2012 10/03/2012 10/03/2012 10/03/2012 10/03/2012 11/13/2012
11/13/2012
11/13/2012 01/11/2013 01/11/2013 01/11/2013 01/23/2013 02/04/2013

AMENDED 21 DAY Summons Issued re First Amended Complaint 7 as to defendants Does, The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc. (rla) Modified on 9/17/2012 (rla). (Entered: 09/17/2012)
8 AMENDED CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties ; filed by plaintiff Imane Boudlal, (rla) Modified on 9/17/2012 (rla). Modified on 9/17/2012 (rla). (Entered: 09/17/2012)
9 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, 7 filed by Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc.(Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
10 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, 7 filed by Defendant The Walt Disney Company.(Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
11 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc (Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
12 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc, identifying The Walt Disney Company (Defendant) and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. (Defendant). (Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
13 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant The Walt Disney Company, identifying The Walt Disney Company (Defendant) and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. (Defendant). (Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
14 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant The Walt Disney Company (Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
15 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge David O. Carter. The Scheduling Conference previously scheduled for 11/19/12 8:30 AM has been rescheduled. The Scheduling Conference is reset to 12/3/2012 8:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter. All lead counsel are ordered to be present. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(jba) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/13/2012)
16 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge David O. Carter. The Scheduling Conference previously scheduled for 12/3/12 at 8:30 a.m. has been VACATED. Court notes Order Setting Scheduling Conference was not issued. Court to issue Order Setting Scheduling Conference forthwith. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(jba) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/13/2012)
17 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge David O. Carter. READ IMMEDIATELY. ( Scheduling Conference set for 2/4/2013 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter.) (twdb) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
18 REQUEST for ADR Procedure No. 3. Parties request for private mediation. Filed by Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc(Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
19 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan Report of Early Meeting of Counsel ; estimated length of trial 6 days, filed by Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc.. (Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
20 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Scheduling Conference from February 4, 2013 to February 11, 2013 Re: Order, Set/Reset Hearing 17 filed by Defendant The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
21 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter, granting Stipulation to Continue 20 . ( Scheduling Conference reset for 2/11/2013 08:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter.) (twdb) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
22 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Scheduling Conference from February 11, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. to March 4, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. filed by Plaintiff Imane Boudlal. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Richardson, Anne) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

Case: 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN As of: 05/12/2014 02:58 AM PDT 4 of 5

02/05/2013 02/15/2013 02/21/2013 02/27/2013 02/28/2013
02/28/2013
03/05/2013 07/22/2013 08/12/2013 12/02/2013 12/17/2013

23 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter, TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: re Stipulation to Continue 22 Scheduling Conference reset for 3/4/2013 08:30 AM. (rla) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
24 Joint STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendant The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Protective Order)(Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
25 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato. Re: Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information 24 and Proposed Order thereon. Rulings: For the reasons discussed below, the Court declines to issue the Proposed Order as drafted. (See attached for details.) (mt) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
26 Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding the Designation and Handling of Confidential Information filed by Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
27 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge David O. Carter, RE: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE DEADLINES AND HEARING DATES: The Court sets the following case management dates: Discovery Cut Off − 10−18−2013; Expert Discovery Cut Off − 12−16−2013; Motion Cut Off − 12−02−2013 at 8:30 a.m.; Final Pre Trial Conference − 02−03−2014 at 8:30 a.m.; Jury Trial − 02−18−2014 at 8:30 a.m. (Est:4 days). Counsel advised that the motion cut−off is the day the Court will hear all dispositive motions. Counsel are to adhere to the Local Rules and work backwards from their motion cut−off date for filing of their motion related documents. Per Rule 26(f) Report, counsel inform the Court that their selection for a settlement procedure pursuant to Local Rule 16−15.4 is private mediation. Settlement procedure to be completed no later than January 13, 2014. Pretrial Scheduling Order signed and filed this date. Any unserved Does/Roes are dismissed at this time. The Scheduling Conference set on March 4, 2013 is removed from the Court's calendar. (rla) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
28 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge David O. Carter, 1. SETTING DISCOVERY CUT−OFF DATE: 10−18−13; 2. MOTION CUT−OFF DATE: 12−02−13; 3. SETTING FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: 02−03−14 (at 8:30 a.m.); 4. SETTING TRIAL DATE: 02−18−14 (at 8:30 a.m.). This Pretrial Scheduling Order governs the course of all pretrial proceedings in this case. For further guidance, consult the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. (See document for further details.) (rla) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
29 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato, ADOPTING PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AGREEMENT RE THE DESIGNATION AND HANDLING OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: re Stipulation for Order 26 . (See document for details.) (rla) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
30 Joint STIPULATION to Continue TRIAL AND RELATED DATES filed by Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Zapp, James) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
31 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES 30 . Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, trial and related dates are continued as follows: Discovery cut−off 1/3/2014. Expert discovery cut−off 2/17/2014. Motion cut−off 2/03/2014. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/7/2014 [8:30 AM] before Judge David O. Carter. Jury Trial set for 4/22/2014 [8:30 AM] before Judge David O. Carter. (ts) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
32 Joint STIPULATION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 01/24/2014 (non−expert discovery cut−off), 02/24/2014 (motion cut−off) and 03/07/2014 (expert discovery cut−off) filed by Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order 01/24/2014 (non−expert discovery cut−off), 02/24/2014 (motion cut−off) and 03/07/2014 (expert discovery cut−off))(Zapp, James) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
33 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter, granting Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date, 32 . ( Discovery cut−off 1/24/2014., Motions due by 2/24/2014.) (twdb) (Entered: 12/17/2013)

Case: 8:12-cv-01306-DOC-AN As of: 05/12/2014 02:58 AM PDT 5 of 5

02/26/2014 03/03/2014 03/03/2014

34 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge David O. Carter: SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE.( Status Conference set for 3/5/2014 07:30 AM before Judge David O. Carter.) (twdb) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
35 Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) filed by Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order To Dismiss Action with Prejudice)(Davis, Felicia) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
36 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter, granting Stipulation to Dismiss Case with prejudice 35 . (twdb) (Entered: 03/03/2014)


[CONTENT] August 2012 | 28 year old | United State | Moroccan | Muslim | Walt Disney Company | District Court | the Central District | California ||| 42 | U.S.C | the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ||| Disney | Disney ||| Disney | Disney | Muslim | Disney ||| the Storytellers Cafe | Walt Disney | Anaheim | California ||| Kunta Kinte | Roots by Alex Haley ||| Arabs |||  ||| 2010 | two years | Disney ||| Disney ||| Disney | 1 | 2 ||| Disney ||| March 3, 2014 [SUMMARY] In August 2012, a 28 year old female plaintiff, a naturalized United State citizen of Moroccan origin and an adherent of the Muslim faith, brought this suit against Walt Disney Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The suit was brought under title VII of 42 U.S.C § 2000e (discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of religion, national origin and color and failure to remedy and prevent harassment), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, etc. In this case, it is alleged that Disney discharged the plaintiff who worked as a hostess at a cafe in a complex operated by Disney because she complained about repeated ethnic and religious slurs from her colleagues and also wore a hijab for her sincere religious faith. The plaintiff asked for: (a) a declaration that Disney's actions constitute illegal harassment  and discrimination; (b) an order enjoining Disney from enforcing its policy or practice of prohibiting employees who are adherents of the Muslim faith from wearing hijab while in positions involving interaction with customers unless such hijabs are concealed by a hat or other object; (c) training of Disney employees and managers regarding harassment and discrimination; and (d) damages.

The allegation states that the plaintiff began working as a hostess at the Storytellers Cafe in the Grand Californian Hotel and Spa, a part of Walt Disney complex in Anaheim, California. During her work, she suffered from repeated slurs, e.g. "terrorist", "camel", and "Kunta Kinte," the slave from the famous book Roots by Alex Haley. Her co-workers also mocked her by stating that Arabs are terrorists, that she speaks the terrorist language and that she was trained to make bombs. She repeatedly reported the harassment to her managers but they never took action.

In 2010, after two years of working at Disney, she began wearing a hijab permanently in accord with her religious beliefs. She asked her supervisors for permission, but they denied it since it would violate Disney's "look" policy. Disney suggested  that she either (1) work in the rear of the restaurant where she would not be exposed to customers, or (2) wear several hats on top of her hijab. She refused and Disney discharged her from further employment.

On March 3, 2014, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to dismiss the case, and the court issued an order granting a stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice.