Orbler
Fashion
Leesa
Sisi
Jeska
Harry
Jana
Maddy 1
Tyronne
the-mothball-cardigan
Nella
yaviz
Miki
Brenton
Chic Critique
Cibbuano
LouieMuslim hairdresser turned down for hairdressing job, Daily Mail attempts to rile readers.
June 24th 2008 10:40
Bushra Noah, incensed at the treatment she received, filed a pair of lawsuits, losing one, but winning the other, forcing Desrosiers to pay 4 000 pounds in damages, due to 'injuries to feelings'.
The Daily Mail reports on the news, pointing out how ridiculous this story appears. After all, Noah admitted that there were no derogatory comments, and Desrosiers is stunned that she almost lost her business for not hiring someone who clearly wouldn't fit the business.
Is this outrageous? Who is the real villain here?
If you ask me, it's the Daily Mail that is the villain, for pushing this story like it's an affront to the personal freedoms of white residents of England. Look how they word their opening paragraph:
"It seems too lunatic to be true. But here a hair salon boss reveals how she was driven to the brink of ruin - and forced to pay £4,000 for 'hurt feelings' - after refusing to hire a Muslim stylist who wouldn't show her hair at work"
Desrosiers didn't really do anything wrong, except for being honest about why she didn't want to hire Noah. If she had just refused, without a reason, this would have been avoided. It's a little sad that we live in a society where you have to mask your reasons, but there you have it. A little bit of sensitivity goes a long way - Desrosiers made Noah feel unwelcome by pointing out that the headscarf is the only reason she couldn't work there.
Noah didn't do anything wrong except pick the wrong type of salon to apply to. Looking at the pictures in the article, I can't imagine her fitting in. That's realistic. I got turned down for a job in a trendy restaurant for not being blonde and having big boobs, I surmise.
What does this mean? Protect yourself from the tabloid-esque papers that flog themselves as 'media'. You know which ones they are. They're the ones with front page pictures of celebrities with no 'knickers' on.
| 136 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i have quite alot of hairdresser friends who get employment at salons based primarily on their looks, it isnt said, its more of an unspoken rule that the more attractive and trendy you are the more likely you are to get the job . . . if you dont have a spray tan, some tsubi jeans and an eating disorder dont bother . . . fashion outlets and surf shops have similar unspoken policies, the staff advertise the products, half of their role is as models
i think the amount was a bit steep, 4000 pounds sounds a bit over the top
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
Personally, I have nothing against piercings but if someone to apply for a job as a corporate receptionist of an investment bank with multiple facial piercings or even uncovered tattoos I would turn them down. They would not fit the role as the face of the company. It does not fit the corporate image.
Far too much PC these days when there are more important REAL discrimination cases going on. The tabloids need a kick in the pants.
Interesting story.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
...my point of contention is still with the Daily Mail, a newspaper that seems to love to stir up things.
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
The Daily Mail took a story that isn't really newsworthy and tried to have people fist thumping about it. I can't stand them.
Comment by Louie
Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
As for the paper, i am not sure if you can truly blame them, they do appear to have some kind of attitude tho.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
ONe would hope a judge would have disregarded the case, really. A legal system cant survive if we're just going to hope nobody sures over anything silly.
Comment by Anonymous
It's not discriminating if a would-be employee doesn't fit the criteria for a job. Hairdressers need to show their hair. It has nothing to do with being "anti muslim". If ANY employee refused to show their hair at a hairdressing salon, then I doubt they would be staying in that job for very long.
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
She, as a hairdresser, should know better than anyone else that it is an industry that is heavily influenced by trend and style.
I used to work at an investment bank, and you can bet that heavily tattoo'd and pierced individuals didn't get hired as investment bankers because corporate bigwigs don't have a whole lot of faith in some dude with tatt's all over him brokering their hundred million dollar deal. That's life.
The only thing this hairdresser did wrong was giving the headscarf as a reason for her not getting the job. As an HR person we judge potential employee's not just on their ability to perform the job, but also on how well they will 'fit' the culture and values of an organisation. I don't really see this as being any different to that.
I know when I used to interview for jobs I used to take out my tongue stud (not that you can really see it anyway unless I laugh really hard because it's quite far back). But I don't anymore, because the fact is that I probably wouldn't fit in at an organisation that wouldn't give me a job based on the fact that I have a tongue stud.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
the Daily Mail using the word "lunatic" isnt very objective, they might do better to just report the facts
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Stupid people do.
Smart people do not get caught making obvious discrimination.
Stupid people pay out 4000 pounds.
I may have a case to set a dress code but not if restricts Muslims any other minority from applying for the job.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
I like that they take sides with whomever they reckon they can profit most from, in this case it's the store, if the wind was blowing differently they'd have sided with the person suing.
But back to the point of the daily mail, god, what to say? I read about an ex-writer explaining how their first priority, as stated by the editor, was to 'outrage' readers in some form or shape. That alone is enough reason not to read it, honestly I'd enjoy reading the political breif more than daily mail ^_^
I do take issues with your opinion:
Yes because in this society there are anti-discrimination laws protecting people from, well discrimination. The scarf is not cause to keep her from working there, had she been bald or had a bunch of piercings and denied the right to work there based on that she would have still won the lawsuit.
Well it's up to you to press charge, you too could have been 4000 pounds richer if you had
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Reportig facts does not get them to the frontpage of digg or reddit, what do you expect?
Comment by Smooth Political
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
"You want me to hire a woman who wears an article of clothing that reminds me of how religion puts women down? Make me".
.
Comment by azangelina
Veiled women work in our hospitals, shops, schools etc so what makes a hairdresser any different.
On one hand i can understand the hair dressers concerns but dont judge someone based on their religious beliefs or what your belief is regarding their religion.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
The hijab does not fit that image. Ergo, woman wearing hijab does not get the job. Quite simple really.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
black people shouldn't work in a restaraunt for red necks, doesn't fit their image
Women shouldn't be allowed to work in construction, it clearly does not fit a construction companies image. But I guess if a construction company enforced such a policy they'd have problems. You know, discriminating and all that.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
One of my friends wears a headscarf and she always looks gorgeous, I love the colours and textures she comes up with and she always looks great and fashionable but if I'm getting my haircut I want to see the hair of the people in the salon as it gives an indication of the standard and styles they do. Just a fact of the job.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The judge would have compared the salons excuse to other cases. Such as if a Sikh wearing a turban was rejected or a Jew with a skull cap was rejected.
Unless the salon can put up a good case as to why it should be excluded from Equal Opportunity then the judge has no choice but to conclude that it was discrimination.
The amount paid out is usually based upon precedents from other cases and would be very unlikely to be very different.
If the salon has an image then the prerequisite for application should have been stipulated before the interview was made. However I am not sure how you write a job add that says no Sikhs, Jews or Muslims headdress is permitted. Sort of goes along the line of of 'Whites Only' facilities in apartheid.
Have fun with the concept but expect trouble.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Actually no it doesn't, since skin colour is a physical feature. Headdress, even headdress worn for religious reasons is a choice.
I'm sure the salon owner has more than recouped her $4000 lost in the payout from all the publicity.
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
But by all means take the risk and put up the sign.
However this is how EEO and Human Rights Commission view such arguments:
"Discrimination on the ground of religion or belief
Discrimination on the basis of religion or belief is proscribed by the ICCPR. Article 2.1 guarantees the enjoyment of human rights
... without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
ICCPR article 26 provides that everyone is equal before the law. It requires that everyone be guaranteed equal and effective protection against discrimination.
Article 3 of the Religion Declaration defines discrimination as
Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.
The Religion Declaration prohibits unintentional as well as intentional acts of discrimination. It also prohibits actions which have a discriminatory effect even if in fact they are applied equally to all."
I
If so, why is everyone sooking about it?
This is a good thing because being sued makes you richer.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
PC is not PC if it favours religious types huh?
How many goths do you see working in a Versace store?
How many preppy jocks do you see working in Deisel?
How many emo's in the athlete's foot?
How many middle aged people serve cocktails in strip joints?
There is such a thing as cutting people a little slack. But no. Not when it comes to religion. As usual the world revolves around them.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
No it wasn't ridiculous, it's called discrimination for a reason. And as much as you'd like to believe 'it's a choice', legally speaking you have as much a right to be black as you have a right to wear a headscarf, had she been denied for having black skin would you still be on the salons side? Look at how pale that bitch is!
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
It was a silly case that should have been thrown out. Oh my feelings are hurt. What a crock.
More like you mentioned my headscarf, I smell a lawsuit coming on.KA-CHING, KA-CHING!
Jesus Christ if someone gave me 4000 bucks every time my feelings got hurt.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
in the UK the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 is really specific and doesnt seem to include an "undue hardship" exemption like they do in the US Really Long Link
they have a broad definition of religion too
so it seems according to local law the salon really is in the wrong
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Ruby, regardless of what you think it's the law, she has no right to deny someone based simply on the fact she's wearing a headscarf.
In the eyes of the law had the woman been denied for being black the hairdresser would be just as guilty, it's virtually the same law being broken. You're talking about having an 'image', but the law does not recognize such a thing, what the law does recognize is blatant discrimination based on religion, skin colour, sex and probably a lot more things.
It sets the precedent that I can hire you based on whatever I want, if I don't like your skin colour or your sex I can just say 'nah I don't want to hire you, you're black/a woman'. I know you're all 'but it's her chooooooooooice' and honestly, meh, in your eyes maybe, but religion is more attached to some people than their gender or skin colour. Discriminating based on religion is just as terrible as discriminating based on ethnicity. Doesn't matter what you want to believe, your feelings are, being fair transcends what feels right to you.
*sigh* No, she probably specifically said 'oh I'm not going to hire you because you're not willing to take your headscarf off', at least that's what had probably been proven in court without reasonable doubt. Remember the law in Britian works under 'innocent until proven guilty', so the prosecution was able to without any reasonable doubt prove the woman did not hire the person based almost soley on the fact she was wearing a headscarf.
Clearly you are not in the mood to have a serious discussion about this. If you've made up your mind then fair enough, indulge yourself, I'll end it here.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
But let me just say this. I am not a fan of "zero tolerance" type policies. Because what you end up with is people thrown in jail whether thay have 20 hydroponic marijuana plants stashed in their apartment, or whether they simply have two half-smoked doobies stashed in their pockets.
And you have young men thrown in jail for 20 years whether they have just robbed a service station at gunpoint or whether they just lifted a pack of cigarettes from a supermarket.
Now if that Muslim woman had walked into a shoe shop to ask for a job and the owner asked her if she would remove her scarf then I would be thinking "Why? What does her scarf have to do with anything?" But since it was a hair salon, where hair is the owner's livelihood, then I am prepared to give the owner the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, I know it is still called discrimination in the eyes of the law, but you know using your discretion is a good thing. And it is something that is becoming more and more rare.
It's interesting to see that you have chosen to argue the 'PC' side in this particular case.
Comment by American Muslim