More news

[emmelinemay]

More from the newspapers - from sad to FURIOUS.

Muslim hairdresser who wears a scarf wins £4000 for 'hurt feelings' after being turned down for a job in a super trendy salon

She wouldn't have got that job headscarf or not, quite frankly. It's really near my work, and all the people that work in there are alternative trendy types. So now you're no longer allowed to refuse people jobs if they won't fit in? We can all sue potential employers when we have a bad interview for 'hurt feelings'???

This was nothing to do with discrimination. This is a stupid girl in totally the wrong profession. She was apparently turned down TWENTY FIVE TIMES in total, it was just that this one salon owner was honest enough to mention what all the rest were thinking - how can you be a HAIR STYLIST if you believe your hair should be covered in public??

I am actually incoherent with rage over this issue. I am pretty sure I mentioned it here when the news first broke, but can't find my entry on it.

The tribunal found no religious discrimination, no unfair discrimination, they even accepted thatone of the reasons the head-scarf girl was turned down was that she lived too far away from the salon. And yet, £4000 for HURT FEELINGS???

emperor_tamarin sums up with this comment:
Headline should be: "Self righteous teenager gets payout for belonging to minority religious group that everyone is afraid of offending."

EDIT - Here's the website for Wedge, with some pictures of the stylists.
http://www.wedgehair.co.uk/Pages/Gallery.html
Note - the owner trained at Children Of Vision - some of you will remember their salon upstairs at Kensington Market. This girl would not have got a job there, headscarf or otherwise.

Comments

[ant-girl.livejournal.com]

Well, she might not be.

But whether or not this is the case, the salon owner openly admitted that the headscarf was a factor, and I don't think this is acceptable.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

I agree with the salon owner. Maybe in some salons, it might not be an issue, but there's a very specific look for that salon, with a specific clientele, for which this girl was simply not suitable.

The tribunal accepted that there was NO religious discrimination, and that there were other reasons for her not getting the job - one being she lived too far away. Teh payout is purely and simply for 'hurt feelings' - which - regardless of whether you agree with the salon owner or not - is absolutely ridiculous.

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

Does this mean I can sue every potential employer that has ever turned me down for my hurt feelings? I could buy a good few pairs of shoes if I got £4000 from each of them...

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

Apparently so.

[deviblue.livejournal.com]

wow that means I wouldn't have to work for about 3 years then.

[ant-girl.livejournal.com]

Do you think that "living too far away" is a good reason to turn someone down for a job? Sounds like an excuse to me. I'd be livid if I got refused a job because I lived too far away... after all, how I get there or whether I decide to move nearer if I do get the job etc. is my business.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

I think living too far away, not being a 'good fit' for the other staff members, not looking like you belong to that company, well, yes, they are all good reasons.

I would be unlikely to get a job as a receptionist for a really posh company or a high fashion company because I don't look high fashion. I wouldn't go to the job interviews anyway, TWENTY FIVE of them, and then sue the first place that said 'we'll hire you if you take out your piercings' because they'd 'hurt my feelings'.

Please note that the tribunal have accepted that there was no evidence of religious discrimination whatsoever and that the payout is for hurt feelings and nothing else.