Hairdresser sued for rejecting Muslim job applicant

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

I have been around longer than you Mike Densham, and I have had my hair cut by a person who had head covering. As an 11 year old I remember well the man who stood over 6 feet tall and cut my hair with a cutthrought razor, no scisors or comb. He was a Sikh and with his height, turban, beard and flashing razor he was a very impressive figure.
It did not matter that he wore a turban just that we the male members of the family received good haircuts.

As far as this case goes, women approach hairdressing differently from men, they wish to see examples of the styles the salon produces. But I remember what my wife says when she has to change salons, look at the hair of the staff if they look good choose the one with the worst hair as she will have done the hair of the others and is the best of the bunch!

it seems to be that so many o us have to be tolerant
As a Christian I believe that I should not work on Sundays or certain religous festivals such as Good Friday and Christmas Day
One employer I was working for (part time) during my studies said I had to work on Christmas Day as they were going to open and it worked out that Christmas was my rota'd day on.
Now when I started there I made my religous beliefs clear. Yet when I challenged this to my then employer I was informed that I could work as rota'd or leave!

Not knowing what I do now, I left.

THere still seems to be some intollerance to those of a less minority faith. Why is this

Claire, thank you for clarifying the point. I don't disagree that all cultures should be as inclusive as possible in relating and responding to people from outside of that cultural group. That should be a given.

But, let's remind ourselves of the need to be careful here. Tolerating one another is only possible if what one person wants to do does not preclude the other person from doing what they want to do, and it doesn’t take much thinking through to realise that this will have natural limits so before long we have the question of whose rights of freedom of expression is supreme……….
But in this particular scenario the question is this:
Is an employer being intolerant by insisting on a dress code? I do not believe so, unless of course the dress code is a cover for discrimination.

On the wider issue of tolerance I am very concerned about the way that the UK has recently moved legislation in the name of equality which has in fact started to define a new and politicised morality.

My comment refers to the imposition of one set of cultural values on someone from outside that culture - I wasn't saying the comments are racist, I'm just saying that in the multicultural society we live in we should accept that some people want to do things differently to others, and dress codes should be mindful of this.

We should be ashamed. Muslims seem to have become fair game in our society. Let's be honest - there are several other marginal groups who noone would dare challenge in this manner - and rightly so.

Claire, you posit that the comments made are of a racist nature?
Please make it clear; does your scenario assume that the religion is an issue or the dress code? You see it is important not to mix the two issues, if the dress code is covering of the head then I would suggest that anyone who refuses is not willing to adhere to the dress code and should not be employed. If however it is the fact that your hypothetical company is insisting the head is covered on religious grounds then it is clear discrimination.
I may be a bit dim, but I don’t see that your conjecture helps us very much with our debate?

How different would the comments here be if a non-Muslim hairdresser had been refused a job at a salon owned by a Muslim for NOT wearing a headscarf?

This is a loony situation. Of course the Salon owner is right. I wouldnt employ anyone in an upmarket clothes shop if they turned up wearing jeans! Business is about instilling a desire for a product in the eye of the consumer. If that image is fundamentally compromised by what is worn (if it is important to that type of business) then the employer has to have the right to make such descisions. Office work, or similar circumstances may well be different.

Martin said,"But why is it inevitably, necessarily, incontrovertibly reasonable, as these comments would suggest, to exclude Noah from employment simply because she is wearing a head scarf, because in the end, that's what happened."

I am not sure the mode of head covering is the issue here, it is the fact the head is covered and the employer requires her staff to have their hair on show - The fundamental issue is not religious.

I’ve never commented on one of these discussion boards before but feel compelled to do so on this occasion.
I wonder if Martin Brewer can recall any occasion in his life that his hair was cut at a hairdressers by someone with their hair covered. I certainly can’t! (I’m 42 years old, not saying that I remember every haircut I’ve ever had, but of the ones I do remember, I don’t ever recall a hairdresser wearing headgear).
On Martin Brewer’s other points:

1. ‘Politically correct’, rightly or wrongly, is considered by some to be an insult because it means you are taking being fair-minded to an unsustainable extreme, and you are plainly not seeing that (e.g.: what if I want to cut hair stark naked because wearing clothes offends my religious beliefs)
2. If all employers have a right to specify a dress code and standard of appearance (as you state), then logically that right CANNOT be questioned. Otherwise they have no such right.
3. As to the business argument, even if the hairdresser in question were commercially misjudging her industry by specifying the dress code that she does, a tribunal or court of law is not qualified to determine that. It has neither the legal right nor duty (nor experience) to pass judgement on purely commercial decisions.
Surely there is only one basis on which Ms. Noah should conceivably win her case – if the hairdresser simply dreamed this ‘dress code’ up to exclude certain religion(s). If the hairdresser has in the past employed other people who habitually wore other types of headgear, that would be evidence to that effect. As would evidence showing it is common practice in the industry that headgear (religious or not) is worn by people who want to. Which brings me back to my first question – have you ever had your hair cut by someone with their hair covered?

If we all did as Paul Kreuz suggests, then we would be in an even worse situation regarding ghettos than we already are. Cultural cohesion is the only way forward to integration and the true embracing of diversity which recognises And values difference.

If Noah wants to be a Muslim hairdresser, then why doesn't work in a Muslim salon where no-one cares what her hair looks like?

I wouldn't normally come back to a debate like this as it seems to me to be going round in circles. But I am moved to respond in part to Keith's points. My question was serious for the very reason evidenced by these comments. First whether wearing a scarf is a requirement of a religion is not the point. Second, many correspondents on this thread are assuming that Sarah's point of view is reasonable. But why is it inevitably, necessarily, incontrovertibly reasonable, as these comments would suggest, to exclude Noah from employment simply because she is wearing a head scarf, because in the end, that's what happened. I cannot say how a case like this would be decided and, like all of the correspondents I too have a view. But that's not the point. Any individual who is turned down for a job for which they are qualified is entitled to ask why and it seems to me that's all Noah is doing. By arguing that 'it's so obviously reasonable' not only does one make the assumption that it is reasonable without that being tested (and no one can explain why it's so obviously reasonable-after all I don't check out my hairdresser's hair-I don't even know where she gets it done), one also buys into a whole host of assumptions. Did for example, anyone consider that the business argument, that a headscarf wearing hairdresser would be bad for business, consider that Muslim women who despite wearing the headscarf might like to have well cut hair for when they remove it, might actually flock to a headscarf wearing hairdresser? They may not of course but again my point is simply this: be wary of making assumptions and accepting the 'it's so obvious' argument. It's not obvious. Discrimination comes in many forms and many of the leading cases deal with the unintended and unconscious discriminatory effects of peolples well-intentioned and seemingly neutral acts.

Unfortunately Sarah sounds like she's on a bit of a sticky wicket here. Noah could have been a good addition to her company but her reluctance to remove her head scarf could influence Sarah's business. I don't think playing the race card is a great move though and surely after 25 failed interviews you would have asked why you hadn't got the job? Unfortunately people can't be honest these days and tell you the truth without being branded a racist. Nothing to do with religion, just appearance. I hope Sarah is given the benefit of the doubt in this case but equally i hope that Noah gives the money to a good cause if she is fighting this on principle, as she claims.

So there is the usual mix of comments PC at one end and outraged at the other. I find myself closer to the outraged on this, I wonder why.
Is it that I am racist? Honestly not.
Am I anti religious expression? No I have a faith and respect others.
Perhaps it is because I feel that the employer really should be able to ask for hair to be on show in a hairdressers? Ah yes, that would be it.

Martin Brewer asks “are we really saying no one should have the right of challenge?” I wonder is this a serious question?
Yes all should have a right to challenge where there is not a reasonable (dreadful word in legal situations…) argument. Whether the employer was discriminating or just sticking to her business principles we don’t know. But as business principles they are fair and reasonable. Martin then goes on to ruminate on an analogy on the distinction between those with or without a beard – this is streching the point, the headscarf is a personal choice, it is not the requirement of the koran, growing a beard is on a different level.

I also agree with Peter Daws. In that type of business you need to show what you have great taste and style, to encourage customers to receive advice from their hairdressers...To this type of job in particular, appareance is paramount to succeed and it would be unfair to punish her for that. If this type of claims is successful, imagine how many more claims like this will be made and how many people's lives will be ruined...

I totally agree with Peter (Hoare). The image for any hairdressing establishment to maintain is surely "class & style" and that can be achieved in a number of different ways - ways which will not be agreeable to all potential customers but that will be their choice.

I am afraid that I can sense prejudices coming through some of the comments made.

So many comments here all referring to "commomn sense". Here is the only real problem. Common sense has no place in a court of law. And this is even more prominent in tribunals.
I am more than happy to say that the muslim lady in question is probably a very good hairdresser.
But any hairdressers that anyone works at has a more stict "appearance policy" than many offices dress codes. Would anyone go to get their hair cut by someone who had greasy dirty hair
OR by someone who wore a baseball cap constantly?

I fail to see the relevance of a hairdresser's own hair (or covering up thereof) to their quality and ability to cut hair. To the first two posters above, are you really saying that you'd refuse to have your hair cut by someone who was bald? Do you believe that the hairdresser cuts their own hair?

Well said, Martin!

at the risk of being accused of being 'politically correct' (when did that become an insult by the way?) the issue here is not whether an employer has the right to specify a dress code and standard of appearance. All employers have that right. The question is whether the code or standard is discriminatory. This is simply explained by the Sikh example. If a particular employer's dress code required all employees to have uncovered heads no observant Sikh male could become an employee. It may be that in particular employments this policy could be justified but each case has to be tested otherwise we will not know if the policy was being imposed specifically to exclude certain types of individual.

I wonder if the same level of argument would be heard if this hairdresser had insisted on all her hairdressers having a beard thus excluding all (or most!) women. I know some will say this is an absurd example but it is simply an example of an appearance standard that has a disproportionate effect on one sector of our society and may be impossible to justify. Sarah's standards may well be justifiable but are we really saying no one should have the right of challenge?

In my opinion this sort of thing has gone too far already. As an employer Sarah has the right to specify a dress code and standard of appearance for the people she employs. If muslim women want to wear a headscarf, fine, they should be allowed to, but they must understand that if the headscarf does not fit with the requirements of a potential employer, then they should be prepared to either remove it at work or they don't get the job. Political correctness is ruining this country.

I hope the tribunal throw this case straight out. It is essential to see the full appearance of the staff member in a salon. As the presentation of hair, make up and clothes of the stylist helps me to decide if it is a place that I would like to visit. And if Miss Noah has attended 25 other interviews and been rejected, surely she should of reassessed her interview tecnique. Good luck to Miss Deroesiers with this case as this could ruin her.