Hairdresser Is Sued For Refusing A Job To Woman In Headscarf

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
[url="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23420076-details/Hairdresser%20is%20sued%20for%20refusing%20a%20job%20to%20woman%20in%20a%20headscarf/article.do?expand=true#StartComments"]Link here[/url]

[quote]The owner of an "alternative" London hair salon is being sued for religious discrimination after refusing to give a job to a Muslim woman who wanted to wear a headscarf at work.

Sarah Desrosiers, whose Wedge salon specialises in "urban funky" cuts, says she turned down applicant Bushra Noah because she was "selling image" and needed her staff to display their hairstyles to the public.
Ms Noah, 19, is claiming religious discrimination and suing Ms Desrosiers for more than £15,000 for injury to her feelings, as well as an unspecified sum for lost earnings.

Ms Desrosiers, 32, who set up her business in King's Cross 18 months ago, has already spent more than £1,000 fighting the case and says that if she loses she will be forced to close.

She denies any discrimination and says she rejected Ms Noah because she was unwilling to show her hair at work.[/quote]
full article at the link

[CatherineM]

My mother was a beautician. She couldn't go to the door with her hair undone. Her nails were always on display. She often got new clients because someone made a comment about her hair or nails in the grocery store line or doctor's waiting room. In a large trendy beauty parlor like that, where it is all about appearance, if I saw someone in a scarf, I'd think someone in the shop had messed her hair up.

Would you have your teeth cleaned by someone wearing a dental guard to cover their teeth, or how about buy a car from someone who didn't have a driver's license (that because people joke my husband should sell used cars eventhough he doesn't drive). How would we feel if this woman wore a scarf because she had lost her hair?

In the US, small businesses often don't have to comply with certain employment rules like the ADA or unemployment/benefits. The reasoning is that they don't make enough money to stay in business if they have to do these things. The hope being that they will eventually get large enough. Something like this can destroy a business at a time when the economy world wide is starting to struggle. I'm wondering what she was thinking. I mean, at my size, I wouldn't try for a job at Victoria's Secret, then sue when they laughed me out of the shop.

[havok579257]

i think i have to agree with the store owner on this one. Its the same as uniforms at certain jobs. If you don't want to wear a uniform, then find a job at another store. In this case, if you can't have your hair covered and you want it covered, get a job at a different store.

Also it irks me to no end when someone sues someone else because their feelings are hurt. Have we become a society now that when ever their feelings get hurt the only way to make them better is give a lump sum of money?

[CatherineM]

The American dream used to be to get a job, work hard, and make a better life for your kids. Now it is to win the lottery, find someone to sue, or mold your kids into pro athletes or rock stars.

[Madame Vengier]

How can this be, since "most Muslims" are so peaceful and just want to co-exist serenely with their neighbors???

(rolls @@ eyes)

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1589563' date='Jul 2 2008, 07:28 PM']i think i have to agree with the store owner on this one. Its the same as uniforms at certain jobs. If you don't want to wear a uniform, then find a job at another store. In this case, if you can't have your hair covered and you want it covered, get a job at a different store.

Also it irks me to no end when someone sues someone else because their feelings are hurt. Have we become a society now that when ever their feelings get hurt the only way to make them better is give a lump sum of money?[/quote]


You can bet this is not about having hurt feelings. This lawsuit was about setting a standard. Now that this Muslim woman got her way there will be more lawsuits to follow in this vein. Everyone--and I mean everyone--with the slightest modicum of common sense knows that it's rediculous to think a salon should have to hire a hairdresser who won't show her own hair. It was never about this. This woman tried to get this job KNOWING that no one would hire her. She had tried several beauty salons before this one and she wasn't hired by them either. So what was the difference here? The difference was that the other ones did not give a reason for not hiring her (no one is required to give a reason for not hiring someone) and this one did--and she gave her reason as specifically being the veil. So, BAM! The Muslim woman found her target. It was a trap.

Islam...the religion of trickery, intimidation and fear.

[Archaeology cat]

This was in the papers quite a while back, actually. But I'm not sure I'd heard this bit before: [quote]Ms Noah said today she had attended a total of 25 interviews for hairdressing jobs without success and had decided to take legal action because she had been upset by Ms Desrosiers' comments. She said: "I decided to sue this hairdresser because she upset me the most. I felt so down and got so depressed, I thought if I am not going to defend myself, who is?[/quote]

I have to wonder why she was turned down from each of those posts? I do think it makes sense that, in a salon such as this one, that specialises in funky hairstyles, she should reveal her hair. It's not about religious discrimination, but about being able to contribute to the salon.

Kinda reminds me of the lady who was let go from her speech therapy position because she refused to reveal her face to those she was working with. I believe it had been understood when she was hired that she'd remove the veil from her face when working with client, but that she could remain veiled at other times. Once she got the job, though, she didn't remove the veil from her face at any time, and so was let go because she couldn't properly do her job if the other person couldn't see her mouth. Nothing about religion.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1589956' date='Jul 3 2008, 08:15 AM']This was in the papers quite a while back, actually. But I'm not sure I'd heard this bit before:

I have to wonder why she was turned down from each of those posts? I do think it makes sense that, in a salon such as this one, that specialises in funky hairstyles, she should reveal her hair. It's not about religious discrimination, but about being able to contribute to the salon.

Kinda reminds me of the lady who was let go from her speech therapy position because she refused to reveal her face to those she was working with. I believe it had been understood when she was hired that she'd remove the veil from her face when working with client, but that she could remain veiled at other times. Once she got the job, though, she didn't remove the veil from her face at any time, and so was let go because she couldn't properly do her job if the other person couldn't see her mouth. Nothing about religion.[/quote]


I remember that case very well. That too was meant to be a standard-maker for Muslims and it failed. Before THAT it was the Muslim woman who tried to sue the DMV for not letting her keep her face covered for her ID card. Every sane person on this planet knows this is outrageous--the notion that anyone would be allowed to keep their face covered for an IDENTIFICATION photo. But again, this was supposed to be a standard-maker and it failed. Another one was the Muslim nurses who were required to wear short-sleeved scrub uniforms for obvious hygiene purposes. That one is still being sorted out. And there are the cases of Muslim women taking jobs that require them to wear a unifrom comprised of pants, with the Muslims stating how humiliating it is to wear pants, "for me it's the same as being naked". And of course there were the Muslim students who forced a university to remove a Cross and other non-Muslim religious symbols from a community chapel because it "offended them". And then there are the foot baths on campus and the prayer room in Tysons Corner mall, Virginia. This list can go on and on and on and on and...

Is this co-existing peacefully? Is "peace" only defined as the absence of violence? I don't think so--on both points. While it may not be "about religion" for these employers--because it's about basic common sense--it has everything to do with religion for Muslims. It is never assimilating or comprimising. It's about forcing the rest of us to change to suit their wants and needs.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1589952' date='Jul 3 2008, 03:04 PM']How can this be, since "most Muslims" are so peaceful and just want to co-exist serenely with their neighbors???

(rolls @@ eyes)[/quote]

I know that you don't like Muslims. You've made that quite plain. But are you seriously suggesting that a hairdresser who sues over a job is comparable to somebody who uses violence against their neighbours? There are frivolous lawsuits taking place every day of the week, over topics much more trivial than this one. A quick Google search reveals lists and lists of totally laughable court cases. You are reacting like this simply because it's a Muslim woman involved.

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1589953' date='Jul 3 2008, 03:10 PM']You can bet this is not about having hurt feelings. This lawsuit was about setting a standard. Now that this Muslim woman got her way there will be more lawsuits to follow in this vein. Everyone--and I mean everyone--with the slightest modicum of common sense knows that it's rediculous to think a salon should have to hire a hairdresser who won't show her own hair. It was never about this. This woman tried to get this job KNOWING that no one would hire her. She had tried several beauty salons before this one and she wasn't hired by them either. So what was the difference here? The difference was that the other ones did not give a reason for not hiring her (no one is required to give a reason for not hiring someone) and this one did--and she gave her reason as specifically being the veil. So, BAM! The Muslim woman found her target. It was a trap.

Islam...the religion of trickery, intimidation and fear.[/quote]

Or maybe it's about a woman who is a qualified hairdresser and wants a job as a qualified hairdresser. Maybe she got so fed up after failing to get employment after twenty-five tries that she decided, rightly or wrongly, to take it to court. Personally, I think that she was overreacting and that the whole thing is silly. In her position I would just start up my own hair salon. But speaking of 'targets' and 'traps', as if the whole thing were a sinister premeditated conspiracy, is just as silly as the court case.

[homeschoolmom]

I did not know it was against the law to "injure someone's feelings."

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1589976' date='Jul 3 2008, 08:41 AM']I did not know it was against the law to "injure someone's feelings."[/quote]


Exactly. So the question we have to ask ourselves--very soberly--is why the courts ruled in the Muslim woman's favor.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1589973' date='Jul 3 2008, 08:38 AM']I know that you don't like Muslims.[/quote]

You're a liar. And how dare you put words in my mouth.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1589968' date='Jul 3 2008, 03:33 PM']I remember that case very well. That too was meant to be a standard-maker for Muslims and it failed. Before THAT it was the Muslim woman who tried to sue the DMV for not letting her keep her face covered for her ID card. Every sane person on this planet knows this is outrageous--the notion that anyone would be allowed to keep their face covered for an IDENTIFICATION photo. But again, this was supposed to be a standard-maker and it failed. Another one was the Muslim nurses who were required to wear short-sleeved scrub uniforms for obvious hygiene purposes. That one is still being sorted out. And there are the cases of Muslim women taking jobs that require them to wear a unifrom comprised of pants, with the Muslims stating how humiliating it is to wear pants, "for me it's the same as being naked". And of course there were the Muslim students who forced a university to remove a Cross and other non-Muslim religious symbols from a community chapel because it "offended them". And then there are the foot baths on campus and the prayer room in Tysons Corner mall, Virginia. This list can go on and on and on and on and...[/quote]

Given that pants comprise part of the cultural dress for Muslim women from the Indian subcontinent, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, Thailand, and parts of North Africa, you can't make blanket statements about Muslim women refusing to wear pants. Trousers are a common part of female dress in most of the Muslim world, with the shalwar khameez being one of the most popular outfits.

This does, however, put me in mind of Orthodox Jewish women who refuse point-blank to wear trousers, stating that the Bible forbids women to assume the dress of men. (Some people on Phatmass even subscribe to that view.) I know from your previous posts that you are much kinder in your outlook towards Jews than you are towards Muslims, so would you claim that the refusal of a Haredi Jewish woman to wear pants was a sign that she didn't want to 'coexist in peace'? After all, you are much more likely to see a Muslim woman in trousers than you are to see an observant Jewish woman wearing the same. Or do you employ a double standard here?

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1589982' date='Jul 3 2008, 08:44 AM']you can't make blanket statements about Muslim women refusing to wear pants.[/quote]


Are you serious?? Can you be this thick?? It's not ME making an issue about the pants. I simply reported the argument that the Muslim woman gave. SHE did not want to wear the pants. SHE claimed it was like "being naked". SHE claimed it was humiliating.

You need to do a few things:

1: Stop twisting peoples' words.
2: Stop putting words in peoples' mouths.
3: Read and comprehend before you respond, instead of responding based on something the person never wrote in the first place.
4: Stop telling lies.
5: Stop accusing people of "blanket statements" when in fact a statement was only made about ONE person, not a group of persons.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1589976' date='Jul 3 2008, 02:41 PM']I did not know it was against the law to "injure someone's feelings."[/quote]
I know. I'm so tired of these frivolous lawsuits - from anyone and everyone that makes them. I agree with CA that she could have just started up her own salon. I'm assuming she has her beautician license (or whatever the equivalent is here), so it wouldn't be out of the question to start her own place.