hair salon owner is being sued for religious discrimination

[Dreadful Scathe]

Aye right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I work as an optician but I have perfect eyesight and don't need specs.

Would it be reasonable for someone to refuse to hire me on the grounds that the essence of my line of work is the sale of specs and it's absolutely basic that the public should be able to see me wearing specs?

I think not.

I don't think that analogy is even close. If you style hair it makes some kind of sense that your own hair is styled, and visible so that can be seen - but if you sell glasses you don't necessarily need to have bad eyesight

[Barry Shnikov]

I'm so glad you said that. I dunno why but I had a feeling you were going to go all lawyer-like on me and say it was an infringement of her human rights or summit.

I don't see any compatibility between the exercise of human rights and attempting to force the world to conform to one's personal religious prejudices.

[Barry Shnikov]

Further thoughts.

The imposition of a requirement that would make it difficult for persons of one faith to accept or to continue in the job would have to satisfy some sort of reasonableness test. To give a wildly improbable example, suppose an employer ran a free canteen in which the only meals served were pork and bacon based, and for hygiene reasons refused to allow staff to bring sandwiches and stuff. That might be discriminatory for jews and moslems.

Would it be reasonable if the employer was a pork butchery, not touching beef and lamb? Possibly. It might be fairer to get some chicken meals in and charge for them.

Is it reasonable to require a hairdressing employee not to wear a scarf over the hair? I'm going to come down on yes, but it would be arguable the other way!

[Isis]

Of course not. But if you were, I would help you whether you agreed with me or not...

Thank you

[ducasi]

For example, as a Christian I don't want to work on a Sunday. If I went for a job interview and if told at that stage I had to work on a Sunday, I would say I wouldn't because of my beliefs. If I then wasn't offered the job I wouldn't complain that I was discriminated against on religous grounds. I would simply see it that my personal beliefs and the requirements of the job didn't match up.

The difference here is that not being able to work on Sundays would clearly affect your ability to do a job that requires you to be available any day of the week.

I don't see how wearing a hair scarf affect her ability to do the job of cutting other people's hair.

(It would be a factor for me though in deciding whether I employed her or not - given the choice, I'd prefer to employ someone who had visibly great hair, as that would would increase my customer's confidence in my company.)

[SteveK]

Also - if the salon owner is promoting the young funky image that she claims, if I'm going to be very harsh, the headscarf is probably not the only issue.

What are the small black animals stuck to her forehead, just above her eyes?

Cheers straycat & Barry - I've just spat tea on the carpet laughing at that!!

[Dance Demon]

After being turned down 25 times, I think her only opportunity is to set up her own salon - that would solve her employment problem immediately!

Maybe she should set up her own business selling head scarves........

[Lynn]

The difference here is that not being able to work on Sundays would clearly affect your ability to do a job that requires you to be available any day of the week.

I don't see how wearing a hair scarf affect her ability to do the job of cutting other people's hair.

If going to a salon was just about the practicalities of a haircut - then yes - and probably it is for guys! But its more than that - its an experience. A woman chooses a salon based on the whole vibe of the place. Yes of course the stylists have to be skilled or the customer won't be back.

[David Bailey]

If going to a salon was just about the practicalities of a haircut - then yes - and probably it is for guys! But its more than that - its an experience. A woman chooses a salon based on the whole vibe of the place.

If you're selling a product based on beauty, you are reasonable to insist that your staff help to promote that ideal. Sure, it's shallow - but hey, it's the beauty industry. Nexty thing you know, you won't be able to hire goodlooking models because you're discriminating against ugly people.

The more I think about this one, the weirder it seems - in fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if this wannabe-hairdresser woman is deliberately provoking this reaction.

All it teaches, of course, is that it's now impossible to make effective recruitment judgements.

[Barry Shnikov]

Maybe she should set up her own business selling head scarves........

Excellent!

[Raul]

All it teaches, of course, is that it's now impossible to make effective recruitment judgements.

Have you ever seen a bald person working as a hairdresser or an old overweight person in a young trendy clothes shop or a skinny man in gym?

Would you attend an interview for an office wearing jeans and sandals or a job on a building site wearing a suit?

I am sure that none of these things have any bearing on your skills and ability to do the job, but if you buck the trend or you give the impression that you will force your employer to make hard decisions now and later, he/she might find it easier to take the standard options and get someone else with similar skills. It is not as if you are the only suitable employee in the world.

May be all job adverts should specify that applicants have some common sense and this would immediately disqualify many of those who are out deliberately to provoke a reaction.

[Gav]

Have you ever seen a bald person working as a hairdresser?

Kerry Warn & Serge Normant at John Frieda.
Trevor Sorbie.
Errol Douglas.

I'm sure there are plenty more, but that's all I can think of.

[Raul]

Kerry Warn & Serge Normant at John Frieda.
Trevor Sorbie.
Errol Douglas.

I'm sure there are plenty more, but that's all I can think of.

Okay Gav. Wrong example, as you cannot tell totally bald men from those who have a receding hairline and are upholding the trend of shaving their head.

Try this one- Have you seen a Rastafarian with matted unwashed hair working as a hairdresser? Now that's a more appropriate example as it has religious connotations.

[Whitebeard]

Kerry Warn & Serge Normant at John Frieda.
Trevor Sorbie.
Errol Douglas.

I'm sure there are plenty more, but that's all I can think of.

If I hadn't known you were in trouble I might have had serious doubts about you ....... ;-)

Those names mean nothing to me. But, there again, I live in a resricted circle hovering on the edge of viability.

[Isis]

I don't think that analogy is even close.

Och, it was a tiny bit close.

[Martin]

I had several interesting cases where people sited race, colour or lifestyle preferences as to why they could not fully complete the job required when working as a manager for a telephone company.

One of them involved a guy from India who refused to repair the phone of any other Indian who was of a lower "caste" than him.

He got away with this for some time, before he was transfered to my team. (I think his previous managers were too scared to take him on, or just wanted an easy life, despite it affecting his co-workers)

Eventually he accepted that he was in a service industry, he was paid well, he was part of a team (where I treated EVERYONE equally), and he wanted to keep his job.

[mabraham]

There's nothing wrong with showcasing the product but should it be compulsory?

Would it be an issue for you whether your optician was or wasn't wearing specs themselves?

This analogy is flawed because the customer can try out the look of new specs on themselves for no cost. There's no need for a "model". However the stylists function as models in a hair salon. The customer doesn't want the inconvenience of trying something irreversible that doesn't work... but if they can see things that have worked, they are more likely to bring their business in (and back).

[SteveK]

There's nothing wrong with showcasing the product but should it be compulsory?

Would it be an issue for you whether your optician was or wasn't wearing specs themselves?

I don't think that analogy is even close. If you style hair it makes some kind of sense that your own hair is styled, and visible so that can be seen - but if you sell glasses you don't necessarily need to have bad eyesight

What if the person wanting to sell the glasses had "NHS specs" - you know the ones with the thick plastic brown/black frames. I'm guessing that an optician's assistant wearing these kind of glasses would not be conducive to an atmosphere of selling expensive designer spectacles.

(That's of course unless they were wearing the NHS style glasses in an ironic fashion, but that's going off topic)

[~*~Saligal~*~]

After being turned down 25 times, I think her only opportunity is to set up her own salon - that would solve her employment problem immediately!

Probably a wiser thing for her to do - especially if she's a good hairdresser. She could have her own little niche market for the islamic community in her area (I think they only allow other women to see them without the headwear). If she wanted to do her own funky haircuts then she could still do that as well and not limit her clientele to islamic women. (she might do this anyway once the lawsuit has finalised )

If she was a good hairdresser then maybe hire her... hey.. who knew that "Ugly Betty" was gonna be a hit! ie someone in the office who really doesn't fit in. In some strange way some people find the difference "cool" (I don't quite get that these days, but then I'm not a Gen Y'r - no offense to the Gen Y's). If her skills were crap then at least you could fire her on grounds of lack of performance (not sure if probationary periods happen in the Scotland)...

[Double Trouble]

Just bumping this thread as the court case is over now.

Bushra gets £4,000 for the 'hurt' caused. Purrrrrleeese....!


Headscarf teen's £4K for job 'hurt' - Mirror.co.uk