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

[sera-squeak.livejournal.com]

"I never in a million years dreamt that somebody would be completely against the display of hair and be in this industry. I don't feel I deserve it."

Sums it up completely.

[ant-girl.livejournal.com]

how can you be a HAIR STYLIST if you believe hair should be covered in public??

I don't think she necessarily believes hair should be covered in public, I think she wants to cover her own hair in public. Which is not quite the same thing.

And also which has absolutely no bearing on her ability to style other people's hair. I simply don't buy this argument that it's essential for a good stylist to have a nice funky hairstyle on display... The chief stylist at the salon I use is a bald man.

If she got turned down 25 times, that to me says that's because the prejudice is so ingrained as to be almost acceptable. In which case, a stylist in a headscarf *might* put punters off... because they are prejudiced too. "How could anybody who covers their hair when out in public be any good at styling hair?"

Sorry for expressing the contentious view! I seem to be the only person who feels this way. ;-)

easy money

[crazymeandave.livejournal.com]

i am sooo applying for jobs in hairdressers now.

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

Or she may not be that good at doing hair, or interviews.

[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've *seen* this salon, it's right by my work.

Any person with a hairstyle that didn't reflect that salon wouldn't get the job. It really is nothing to do with the headscarf, the religion, nothing at all. It would be like her wanting to work, at, for example, a really gothic piercing/tattoo salon and looking really conventional with no tattoos or piercings.

Personally, I wouldn't get my hair cut by someone whose hair I can't see.

Re: easy money

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

I'm going to apply for a job in a muslim bookshop, and sue for discrimination when they ask me to cover up my tattoos and wear a headscarf.

Re: easy money

[mark13.livejournal.com]

Me too!

[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.

Re: easy money

[andyknifton.livejournal.com]

me too!

[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...

[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.

[littleangel-103.livejournal.com]

No you're not alone ant_girl I agree with you on every point. Why does someone's personal beliefs on whether to uncover their hair to strangers or not effect their ability to style someone elses hair? After all I've had my hair cut by people who, if I judged them on their hairstyles, I'd send back to a "My first hair model" toy until they can do something properly.

The racism of the commentary on this case astounds me. Lets review it shall we - person applies for job, person is told her religious beliefs are some or whole of reason why she isn't apponted, person sues under equal rights legislation. I don't see what the problem is - she has freedom of religious expression in this country, it doesn't affect whether or not she can cut hair.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

Apparently so.

[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.

[robtrooper.livejournal.com]

I hope the salon owner appeals.
The headscarf girl is obviously prejudice against her for being the last one to turn her down. Why didn't she take all the other employers to court for the same reason.
If she can get 'hurt feelings' i think it is equally hurtful and prejudice to the salon owner to be singled out.
She wouldn't have sued if that salon owner was the only one who denied her.

[yaruar.livejournal.com]

headscarf aside she dressed in a very boring and uninteresting manner which probably had as much to do with her not getting the job which people seem to ignore when looking at this.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

You guys need to re-read the article.

The tribunal accepted that there was NO GROUNDS for the claim of religious discrimination WHATSOEVER.

The money is for HURT FEELINGS and nothing more. That's the ridiculous thing.

Employers are well within their right to turn down an employee who isn't a 'good fit' for their company, and this is what the salon owner did, and the tribunal accepted this.

The girl originally claimed for £35,000 for religious discrimination, which was thrown out.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

I hope the salon owner appeals.

I was thinking the same thing - £4000 for HURT FEELINGS??? WTF?

An appeal would probably cost even more money though.

Re: easy money

[yaruar.livejournal.com]

heres a few jobs to choose from!
http://www.salaam.co.uk/jobs/search_results.php?salaam_session=3f95e3609bc2af1d7e30dab648e176f9

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

Yup. As I said in my post, she wouldn't have got that job head scarf or not.

You turn up to an interview in the Black Rose in a shell suit and a burberry cap, you'll get the same response.

There were a number of reasons she didn't get that job, and religious discrimination is not one of them. The tribunal have even accepted that. So why the £4000 payout? It makes NO SENSE.

Just to add to your rage

[unclesatan.livejournal.com]

The Criminal Compensation Commision compensates victims the following for sexual offences:

Sexual assault/abuse of victims any age (if not already compensated as a child)


Indecent assault

– minor - non-penetrative indecent physical act/or acts over clothing 1,000

– serious - non-penetrative indecent act/or acts under clothing 2,000

– severe - non-penile penetrative and/or oral-genital act or acts 3,300

– pattern of repetitive frequent severe abuse over a period

– up to 3 years 6,600

– exceeding 3 years 8,200

– resulting in serious internal bodily injuries 22,000

Non-consensual vaginal and/or anal intercourse

– by one attacker 11,000

– by two or more attackers 13,500

– resulting in serious internal bodily injuries 22,000

– resulting in permanently disabling mental illness confirmed by

psychiatric prognosis 27,000

– resulting in serious internal bodily injury with permanent disabling

mental illness confirmed by psychiatric prognosis 33,000

– pattern of repeated incidents over a period

– up to 3 years 16,500

– exceeding 3 years 22,000

It would seem that forcing somebody to felate you is £700 less offensive than hurting a Muslims feelings or about the same as forcibly sticking your hand into 2 strangers knickers

Re: easy money

[yaruar.livejournal.com]

heh, looking at a lot of those adverts they appear illegal anyway as they ask for female applications but don't have exemption clauses.....

Re: Just to add to your rage

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

– severe - non-penile penetrative and/or oral-genital act or acts 3,300

You're right, now I'm really angry.

What's your take on this case, as a legal-type-person?

Re: Just to add to your rage

[unclesatan.livejournal.com]

Employment law isn't something I paid too much attention to, but I'd be inclined to appeal