Sarah Desrosiers has my sympathy and support. She is a small business owner. She has been in business less than a year and a half. Already she has been sued for £35,000 (far more than she earns in a year). Although she lost the case, the tribunal did manage to reduce the damages to £4,000, though Sarah has had to pay over £1000 in defending herself.
Although Sarah does not see herself as a racist and claims that she gets on happily with people from all races and backgrounds - she employs a Muslim as her accountant - she feels that the case has resulted in her being branded a racist in her local community.
One day a 19 year old Muslim woman, Bushra Noah applied for a job at Sarah’s hair salon - one which specializes in funky, urban cuts. Bushra had applied for similar other jobs and been rejected 25 times. Sarah also rejected Bushra on the grounds that she was wearing a headscarf which Bushra insisted she would keep wearing if she got the job.
Sarah’s argument was that her staff represented her business and that it was essential for them to be able to display their hair styles. If her staff came to work wearing baseball caps she would require them to remove the caps. Bushra’s argument was that she was being discriminated against because of her religion, and sued, and won.
I would want to defend Bushra’s rights to practise her own religion and to wear whatever she wants. However, it does seem to me absurd that these rights should be given absolute precedence on all occasions, regardless of the rights of others.
Almost every other small business owner in the land would want the right to have a say in what kind of image their employees projected in representing the business, and it seems harsh to deny Sarah Desrosiers this right, especially when the essence of her business is the display of hair. I may claim that wearing old jeans, a T shirt, and earrings is an integral part of the new religion I am about to invent, but if I did, I doubt that any bank or funeral director would employ me in a role that involved working with the public.
If I did insist on wearing the above attire at all times in public I may need to accept that there are certain jobs that I am unlikely to get, or that I am only likely to get them in businesses run by people who share my own particular religion. It may be that Bushra either needs to accept a change in career or seek employment in hairdressing businesses that are happy for staff to hide their hair.
Having thought about it, inventing a new religion and wearing old jeans, a T shirt, and earrings is just too much hassle. Being short of a few thousand I have decided to become a Muslim and apply for a job behind the bar at my local pub. I’m sure the landlord will not be happy about me refusing to sell alcohol or pork scratchings.
An obvious case of religious discrimination if ever there was one!
I find this verdict quite outrageous. If ever there was a case that cries out for an appeal, this is it. If Sarah Desrosiers feels she has spent enough time, money and nervous energy fighting, I would understand, but if she had the courage to take it further I would applaud her.
This verdict is in my opinion nothing less than a disaster. For sanity to prevail, it has to be reversed.
We have gone unbelievably far down the road of appeasing religious obsessives and this has to stop. There is so much bad feeling being caused by these cases which bring ridicule on the religions themselves and the people who practise them.
Parliament has to pass a law that makes it legitimate to refuse employment to a candidate for a job, or to sack an employee in post, where these people refuse to carry out the duties that are stated in the job description as being part of the job or which can be reasonably inferred to be part of the job.
I can see what you are saying here in part. I just think that Sarah may have shot herself in the foot by saying she didn’t employ the women because of her refusal to take off her hair covering. Another reason would have been given by me, if I was in this buisness women’s situation. The type of style she cut, her technique,her resume, communication with clients;anything but the link between hair and religion.
You see I would have assessed her purely on merit only and not on the hair covering. I would have given her the job if she was good, as it is the clients hair, not her own that is going to earn Sarah customers. If she is a good hair stylist, then I would have overlooked the headscarve. I know hair dressers look great with their own hair but I go to a hairdresser who can cut my fine, dowdy rather awkward hair because that is what is important to me. If I feel good at the end of my session, (which is one of the essential but very few beauty treats I give myself, namely because hairstyling can cost a lot) then I do not give a damn if the hairstylist wears a scarve because of her religion.
I can see the points you have raised about needing to be smart for certain jobs. But this lady candidate may have turned out well for her interview. A scarve does not berate her as being yob-like, such as the one you are painting of tatty jeans and earings.
Just because she wears a scarve because she is a muslim, does not mean she should be denied a job she wants to do and may be good at doing.
Perhaps, she should apply to a salon where other muslims go for their hair care.
I am visiting the hairdresser on Saturday. Looking foreward to it, and if the stylist wore a scarve, (say if she had had chemotherapy and was back at work and had lost her hair as part of her treatment), does that mean the image is no longer suitable for that person to cut hair? No of course not.
£35,000 is way too much, but given the situation, if she was denied employment soley on this, then the deal is a fare one.
I suppose from my own point of view I would want to know exactly what happened here. The question which sprang to my mind was why she decided to sue this particular woman and not any of the others who had turned her down. Was it because as One Thoughtful Woman suggests, the others made other excuses (or indeed had other reasons) not to employ her and did not raise the issue of the headscarf, or was there more going on ie were there unpleasant racist undertones? It’s hard to know.
I think the wearing of particular clothes in respect of your religion is crazy - but that is my personal point of view. And I do think that jobs are jobs and if certain dress styles are expected for a particular job then you should be prepared to adhere to them whatever your personal preference out of work might be and if you are not prepared to do that then you do not go for the job.
One wonders if Sarah stated the need to exhibit a good style of hair as a requirement for the job? Because I have to say that I would not automatically assume that you had to have good hair to work in a salon. I guess it precludes bald people too! Actually I guess it would probably exclude me too since I have not had a haircut in very many years!
I really don’t like what’s happening in Britain - seems like the lunatics have taken over the asylum. How did Muppets like these get into a position of power in an Industrial Tribunal with the ability to make awards which can finish off many a small business just over a matter of silly and spurious political correctness.
Hurt feelings indeed! This silly young woman needs to grow up and to be severly reprimanded for both her daft attitude and also the upset she has caused. Much more to blame than her, though (she just correctly identified a foolproof way to make a fast buck and exploited it) is the ridiculous system that allows and encourages such a situation to be possible.