Friday, July 20, 2012

Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co. (9th Cir. - July 18, 2012)

Chief Judge Kozinski begins this opinion with:  "Segways at Disneyland?  Could happen."  And then proceeds, in classic Kozinski fashion, to (1) compliment (Roy) Disney, and (2) repeatedly insult Disney's lawyer.  See, e.g., Opinion at 8 ("We are disappointed to see such a retrograde position taken by a company whose reputation is built on service to the public.") & 13 ("Disney's other arguments that the regulation is invalid border on the absurd.").

Couldn't be written by anyone else.

P.S. - Personally, I might not second Judge Kozinski's assertion that Roy (and Disneyland) were innovators in service to the public and way ahead of the social curve.  Don't forget that this was the same place that didn't allow its employees to have any facial hair for decades -- too "hippy" (not even mustaches like Roy himself!) -- and still doesn't allow soul patches, beards longer than a quarter of an inch, visible tattoos, "extreme" hairstyles or colors, or body piercings (other than pierced ears for women).  Maybe one could call enforced conformity amongst employees "service" -- in the same way that Hooters employs the term -- but I'm not really sure that Disney "leads the way" in the manner we usually think about when we use that term.