Rate this!
David Vaughan
Member - 1 post
An outrageous assault on property rights.
Rate this!
Robert Langlois
Member - 13 posts
My feelings were hurt reading this.
Rate this!
Paul Kreuz
Member - 39 posts
Part of working in the ‘beauty’ industry is to show your wares off. To hide the hair of the stylist in a hairdresser’s salon would seam to suggest to your clients that your staff have bad hair or bad styling.
This seams to be another case of using the discrimination laws for not what they were intended for, but to force the personal will of a few on the marijority.
Rate this!
Molly Andrews
Member - 10 posts
This is disgraceful. What injury to feelings? The headscarf is nothing to do with religion, it is a man made rule to keep women in the Muslim faith subservient and if this woman had any respect for herself, she would refuse to wear it never mind sue a perfectly good business woman for being sensible!
A hairdresser who always wears a scarf - ridiculous!
Rate this!
Bernard Crouch
Member - 5 posts
The full details behind this case suggest a hidden agenda. Having completed a hairdressing course she visited over 20 hairdressers applying for a job. Each one understandably turned her down, but presumably this salon actually told her why. Could she explain why she didn't apply to any Muslim owned/run hairdressing salons? no.
The Quran says nothing about headcoverings, only that women should dress modestly, and anyway if you visit a Muslim hairdressers what would you see - women with their hair uncovered (how else would they be able to have it styled??)
Rate this!
John Maltby
Member - 7 posts
Well said Bernard, and everyone else above. The problem is how do we get those on the 'ET' to think as in the real world and see this matter for what it was, 'a money grabbing exercise' The Members of the Tribunal have given the girl and others Carte Blanche to inundate the system with more frivoluos claims. The losers end up being the employers honestly trying to improve circumstances for both their staff and the business, and those that do have genuine reason(s) for going to an ET as they get bogged down within the system.
I know in this instance the Salon owner could have appealed however that would have incurred further legal and other costs including her time away from her business, finances and time she can barely afford and on the basis of the first finding what chance did she have of success??
I wish her well.
Rate this!
Stephen Martin
Member - 8 posts
How absolutely rediculous. I see no reason whatever for fining this business person for selecting a candidate she thought suitable for her business and rejecting others.
If ever there was a reason to think again before starting up in busness, this is it! The "authorities" are so politically correct they will take the side of any squealing whingeing twit that cares to mount a case.
I repeat - ridiculous!
Rate this!
Mike Densham
Member - 2 posts
The 'indirect discrimination' is, arguably, a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. I believe the salon owner would have good grounds for appeal.
If she doesn't, somebody will, sooner or later, in similar circumstances.
Also, arguably, in a different type of salon the rule against wearing head covering would not be 'proportionate'. This is the salon in question, judge for yourselves:
http://www.wedgehair.co.uk/
0 (0)
