Racist Hairdresser Sued

[Diver]

come on!

If some out of breath chain smoking 26 stone person who insisted on wearing a turban while working, was turned down for a divers job with a diving company, would it make it to court.
If you don't fit the bill you don't get the job, simple as that.

[SandyDown]

come on!

If some out of breath chain smoking 26 stone person who insisted on wearing a turban while working, was turned down for a divers job with a diving company, would it make it to court.
If you don't fit the bill you don't get the job, simple as that.

Again you'd reject this guy because he is not fit to do the job - 26 stone and chain smoking doesn't make a fit diver (healt and safety and medical fitness to do the job reasons for underwater workers, he will be a danger to himself and others, same as you won't have a nurse working with paitients if she has TB ) you won't reject him simply because he is wearing a turban.

[pisces]

Ironic that one who is made to look unsexy because it's against her religion wants to get a job where she helps women look well, sexy

[Troll]

Again you'd reject this guy because he is not fit to do the job - 26 stone and chain smoking doesn't make a fit diver (healt and safety and medical fitness to do the job reasons for underwater workers, he will be a danger to himself and others, same as you won't have a nurse working with paitients if she has TB ) you won't reject him simply because he is wearing a turban.

Can you wear a turban in a diving suit?

[GreenerGrass]

I think if this had been a pretty Indian girl with nice hair she would have got the job, if the employer was racist she wouldn't have even got an interview due to her name. As such it is nothing to do with race, and no different from a blue rinse granny being turned down for the role which you could call ageist.
Is that fair? Maybe not, but its the employer's right to employ whoever they want that best promotes their business.

The fact she'd been turned down for 25 odd jobs tells you how useless in interviews this woman must be.
Perhaps she should try opening up her own hairdressing shop (if she is so capable of doing the job and thinks her look doesn't matter) and seeing how hard it is to run your own business, rather than becoming a litigious parasite with a victimisation complex.

All Bushra will achieve through her actions is to make employers less likely to even bother interviewing people with names that imply they will be eligible to sue at the drop of a hat (or veil).

[Denny]

She was plainly discriminated against if wearing a headscarf was the only reason she was rejected for the job (if she was the best candidate, otherwise).

Proving that is going to be difficult.

I visit hairdressers regularly and don't care a jot how my stylist's hair looks. All of them are in their twenties (me forties) so I'm hardly going to look to their own whacky multi streaked, asymetrically cut hairstyles, point to it and say, do this for me please....

Most people who visit hairdressers are not all young and trendy. Some just want a practical wash and wear style and having a stylist and cutter who has a funky modern cut is not going to be telling me anything about their own cutting ability - as it is someone else, possibly from another salon entirely, that cut my stylists hair. What hairdresser would attempt to cut their own hair?

Also, not wearing a scarf, as an Asian woman, wouldn't necessarily result in a punky, zippy de day haircut more at home on Top of the Pops than in the Boardroom. Most Asian women I've come across who do show their hair have traditional long, dark tresses unstyled and free and basically trimmed to keep it neat at the bottom. If that were the case with this woman, would she still be rejected because her hair was too traditional and didn't show off a more sophisticated cut?

Having said all of that, I still think that it was rather odd that she should choose a profession that would, more than likely, bring her into contact with men who muslim women can't touch. If there are more grounds for rejecting her case, then this has to be it. No business should have to make so many allowances for someone's religious beliefs if they fundamentally fly in the face of the accepted norms of society and prevent them from doing the job they are meant to do. Not cutting hair properly is no grounds for rejecting her, not being able to wash a man's hair when she is the only staff free to do so whilst everyone else is busy probably is.

I don't rate her chances of winning.

[AtW]

Denny, I thought you hated this board full of racists bigots who double up as sexist swines?

[Troll]

Denny, I thought you hated this board full of racists bigots who double up as sexist swines?

Can you please give ATW his Id & password back

[Pondlife]

Interesting one this.

What if she was bald (for whatever reason)? Would the owner then be guilty of discrimination if that was the sole reason given for non employment? i.e. can't attract off the street work.

If she refused to cut mens hair then it's a fair point to say that she wouldn't be capable of doing the job and is therefore unsuitable.
But if she was perfectly able to perform all duties required and the sole reason for not employing her was the headscarf, then IMO it is discrimination. Why should how a person looks affect their employment if they are capable of doing the job. Is it right to have a 'no mingers allowed' approach to employment?

In this case (especially considering the previous 24 salons refused her) I think she is in the wrong line of business. But I do think that the owner was particularly stupid for citing the headscarf as the reason. Despite this I think her claim for £15K is absurd and hope the jury throws it out.

[AtW]

Dispite this I think her claim for £15K is obsurd and hope the jude throws it out.

despite
jury
absurd

Shocking level of spelling mistakes in just one sentence...