Well, she cannot play Tinkerbelle being with child. But they could at least offer her another position which will not put her or the baby in a bad situation with the extreme heat, positioned up on a float or heaven forbid flying over the castle at night. Possibly in a shop as a cast member where it is air conditioned.
Sounds like common sense to not be a flying Tinkerbell while pregnant. Thank goodness for a little common sense, since grammar seems to be out the window these days.
Yes, that would be sensible if she were the person doing the flight from the Castle. But that is a specially trained person who does that. This young woman likely was Tink in the park, meeting guests or riding on floats. Sad that they could not find another position for her given how many people they employ. Of course, it is possible they did and she said no.
This was so difficult reading with the pronoun “they” because that made me keep wondering who? They is a plural pronoun, but I think this is only about one person? This write up is just so weird, and yeah, no one wants to see a pregnant Tinkerbelle! I
No, pregnant Tinkerbell would never fly (no pun intended) and no employer is obligated to find you another job if you can no longer perform the one you were hired for.
In fact, they are obligated to find a different set of responsibilities if you find yourself physically incapable, per the ADA; and generally, pregnancy is considered a short term disability.
If Disney fired her for being with child, they are wrong and should be punished. Disney is obligated to move her to a position she can perform in her condition. I wish her well in court.
More than likely there is more to this story. Like she was offered a different position and she declined. Or she did not disclose information she already had at the time of hiring. If the story is as simple as stated then she has a good shot at a modest out of court settlement with Disney.
As for the pronouns, I hope they come up with new ones for those who consider themselves non-binary than mess with the existing plural forms. It is simply put stupid to use “they” as a singular pronoun.
Of course she would be fired by Disney. If she was pregnant, that means she would most likely be heterosexual. We all know Disney ain’t got no time for that nonsense.
It’s discrimination!! There are plenty of other characters they could let pregnant cast members be where the costume can hide a baby bump. It’s just plain wrong on Disneys part to fire pregnant cast members.
She should have been allowed to work until she felt she couldn’t, at least up until 3-5 months. Most women may not show until after that. Although, at 7 months my m-i-l was questioning if I was really pregnant. Obviously, we can’t have a pregnant Tink. I’m not sure why she couldn’t have another job that would work for her. Most likely, it was her dream to be a character and a CM job in a shop wasn’t going to cut it. We obviously don’t have the whole story. Which just leads to assumptions that Disney discriminates against women who are creating the very guests they hope to entertain in the future. Oh and for the record, “she most likely be heterosexual” isn’t accurate. Many female only couples choose to have children.
Comments for Disney Cast Member Alleges They Were Fired After Getting Pregnant
Tinker Smell
Whooo Cares!
Ann
Well, she cannot play Tinkerbelle being with child. But they could at least offer her another position which will not put her or the baby in a bad situation with the extreme heat, positioned up on a float or heaven forbid flying over the castle at night. Possibly in a shop as a cast member where it is air conditioned.
Cyndi Moore
That sounds about right, I was a cook got an infection in my spine and begged for another position, all I got were no,sss
SB
Sounds like common sense to not be a flying Tinkerbell while pregnant. Thank goodness for a little common sense, since grammar seems to be out the window these days.
Sandra G
Yes, that would be sensible if she were the person doing the flight from the Castle. But that is a specially trained person who does that. This young woman likely was Tink in the park, meeting guests or riding on floats. Sad that they could not find another position for her given how many people they employ. Of course, it is possible they did and she said no.
KM
This was so difficult reading with the pronoun “they” because that made me keep wondering who? They is a plural pronoun, but I think this is only about one person? This write up is just so weird, and yeah, no one wants to see a pregnant Tinkerbelle! I
SH
I thought the EXACT same thing. I kept thinking there were more than one Tinkerbell that had this issue. Geez
Jennifer Lower
And looking at her TikTok, she clearly states she/her/hers as her pronouns. Way to be woke ITM.
jcr
exactly- improper pronoun use in a published work
John H
More “wokeness” And trying not to offend by using he or she pronouns.
Jim
Alleges. So didn’t happen? Looking forward to the follow up story on this Pulitzer Prize winning piece.
Drew Sanner
No, pregnant Tinkerbell would never fly (no pun intended) and no employer is obligated to find you another job if you can no longer perform the one you were hired for.
Harv
In fact, they are obligated to find a different set of responsibilities if you find yourself physically incapable, per the ADA; and generally, pregnancy is considered a short term disability.
AH
If Disney fired her for being with child, they are wrong and should be punished. Disney is obligated to move her to a position she can perform in her condition. I wish her well in court.
KR
More than likely there is more to this story. Like she was offered a different position and she declined. Or she did not disclose information she already had at the time of hiring. If the story is as simple as stated then she has a good shot at a modest out of court settlement with Disney.
As for the pronouns, I hope they come up with new ones for those who consider themselves non-binary than mess with the existing plural forms. It is simply put stupid to use “they” as a singular pronoun.
Mickeymouse3
Of course she would be fired by Disney. If she was pregnant, that means she would most likely be heterosexual. We all know Disney ain’t got no time for that nonsense.
DLand
🤣🤣🤣🤣 Too funny 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Fran
It’s discrimination!! There are plenty of other characters they could let pregnant cast members be where the costume can hide a baby bump. It’s just plain wrong on Disneys part to fire pregnant cast members.
Susie-Q
She should have been allowed to work until she felt she couldn’t, at least up until 3-5 months. Most women may not show until after that. Although, at 7 months my m-i-l was questioning if I was really pregnant. Obviously, we can’t have a pregnant Tink. I’m not sure why she couldn’t have another job that would work for her. Most likely, it was her dream to be a character and a CM job in a shop wasn’t going to cut it. We obviously don’t have the whole story. Which just leads to assumptions that Disney discriminates against women who are creating the very guests they hope to entertain in the future. Oh and for the record, “she most likely be heterosexual” isn’t accurate. Many female only couples choose to have children.
Jonathan R Bauhof
The alleged incident was three years ago! especially given her other content, theres definitely more to the story.
Comments are closed.