The war erupted Wednesday between Imane Boudlal, 26, Anaheim, a hostess at Storyteller's Restaurant in Disneyland, and Disney's long standing and well known appearance requirements for all staff in public view. This morning, Boudlal tried to go to work again wearing her headscarf, and once again, she went home without working.

Most long-time Orange County residents have at least heard of Disneyland’s policy regarding the appearance of employees. For Disney, it’s not a uniform, or a dress code, it’s a costume. Even though a person might work outside the actual Disneyland Park as a hotel restaurant hostess – far away from a real stage – for Disneyland, if an employee is in public view, they are “on-stage” and must be “in costume.” Aladdin notwithstanding, apparently the costume does not include the hijab.

"No matter where you work or what your role is, anytime you are in a public area, you are 'on stage.' Your attitude and performance are direct reflections on the quality of our Disney show." So reads part of the "guidelines for cast members" in "The Disney Look," a handbook explaining the company's exhaustive dress code policies.

But, does a company handbook trump Federal law? “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sex, race, and religion, among other factors,” attorney Fred S. Peters told OC180NEWS. “If an employee's religiously expressive garment can be reasonably accommodated--in other words if the employee can do his or her job just as well when wearing the religiously expressive item--then it is incumbent on the employer to accommodate that expression.”

In an attempt at just such a reasonable accommodation, Disney offered Boudlal an “off-stage” position. But that meant in the back of the restaurant and the socially minded Boudlal, who likes interacting with patrons, wasn’t interested in a back of house job folding napkins. Each day since Wednesday, she has gone to work – with her headscarf and each day she ran into the same offer and turned it down, leaving work with no pay and no progress.

“Boudlal's main argument will be that by not letting her work as a hostess in her headscarf, Disney has failed to "reasonably accommodate" her religious beliefs,” said Peters. "Reasonable accommodations must be offered in good faith and must not substantially alter the economic rights and benefits enjoyed by the employee pre-accommodation. In other words, Disney cannot offer Ms. Boudlal less money for a worse position. As long as her salary, benefits, and chance for promotion are generally comparable in the new job offered by Disney, they will probably be found to have tried to reasonably accommodate her religious expression.”

Even though the “reasonable accommodation” alternative job was offered with the same pay, on August 18th, Imane Boudlal filed a complaint against Disney with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - the federal agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws in the workplace.

Boudlal said she was compelled to challenge Disney's discriminatory treatment after realizing her own rights. She was granted U.S. citizenship in June and while studying for the accompanying exam, learned of her first amendment right to religious freedom.

"I realized the Constitution tells me I can be Muslim, and I can wear the head scarf," Boudlal said. "Who is Disney to tell me I cannot?”

Even if Boudlal were to prevail on the accommodation issue, Disney has another strong defense on their side – called the “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification” defense. “The anti-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act notwithstanding, if someone's sex, race, or religion, is a legitimate factor, or occupational qualification in the job they are being considered for, the company hiring them is allowed to make hiring, firing and promotion decisions on the basis of what would otherwise be these protected characteristics,” said Peters. “A good comparison is a theatre company that employs actors for a play--only female actors are generally considered for female parts, only a black actor would be considered for Othello, and if the actress hired to play Joan of Arc happened to be Muslim, she could be legitimately fired for trying to deliver a performance in a headscarf.”

“Disney will certainly argue that being an employee in the Disney Grand Californian Hotel includes a thematic element as part of the "show" guests are treated to--the hotel is based on the rustic, turn-of-the-century Craftsman theme of many hotels and lodges in California. Its employees are expected to look that part absolutely. Disney employees arriving for a shift must pass a visual inspection before they go "on-stage," and Disney forbids personal decorative or expressive elements for all their on-stage employees; tattoos, unapproved earrings, head coverings, necklaces, even if they contain a religiously expressive element. Disneyland does not allow "on-stage" employees to wear visible crucifixes, yarmulkes or other religious items, and headscarves will be considered the same way,” said Peters.

Today, after trying to come to some agreement acceptable to both sides, once again, Boudlal went home and did not work. Our inside source told OC180NEWS, Disney this morning offered Boudlal a modified costume with some head covering. But, after meeting behind closed doors with union representatives and company officials, Boudlal left the park and did not work. She could not be reached for comment. We are still waiting for a returned call from Disney to get more information about their perspective.

“If this gets to court, this issue is going to focus on whether workers like Imane Boudlal are regular employees or whether they fall into the category of special "on-stage" employees, where their appearance is a bona fide occupational qualification of their job,” said Peters. “I think Disney will fight this to the end. If Disney has to let this employee wear a headscarf "on-stage," that will open the door to other employees seeking exceptions for expressive tattoos, piercings, hair styles, or other garments worn by the religiously-observant. Disney cannot afford to let that happen, so they will fight this case to its resolution in court.”