Muslim hairdresser accuses salon owner of religious discrimination

New Posts

I just read that second article that was posted. The salon owner states her case pretty well.

I noticed that the muslim woman was wearing make-up in the photo. Isn't that also forbidden?
 
XcomSquaddie said:
I just read that second article that was posted. The salon owner states her case pretty well.

I noticed that the muslim woman was wearing make-up in the photo. Isn't that also forbidden?
Click to expand...

I live exactly next door to a mosque. if it were forbidden, all the ladies who attend would be out on their ear, so no it isn't.
 
I totally sympathise with Sarah and i hope the good thing to come of this for her is the excellent publicity so she has heads aplenty to work on in the future. :clap::clap::clap:

i think she and her hair look great! :)
 
Floh said:
I live exactly next door to a mosque. if it were forbidden, all the ladies who attend would be out on their ear, so no it isn't.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I wasn't sure.


I agree with you. I hope that Sarah, the owner, makes a fortune off the new customers.
 
i think the plantiff was correct in this case.
i was trained with a woman who covered her hair. i never did ask her about her religion, etc, because i did not feel that was appopriate, but she was really a smart lady (and fun!) lady and it infuriates me to think that people would discriminate against each other due to their beliefs. i'll tell you.... she had a sense of humor like no other!!
 
pedinurse said:
...it infuriates me to think that people would discriminate against each other due to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

The owner felt that her employees should reflect the style of the shop. She felt that her employees should have visible hair, in essence a dress code.

Companies all over the world have dress codes. Many companies have dress codes that restrict visible body-modifications such as tattoos and piercings.

A salon that has a policy that ALL workers are not allowed to cover their hair is no different than a company that requires ALL workers to wear business dress clothing.

If YOUR religion interferes with a job than it is YOUR problem, not that of the employer.

A society based on democracy holds that the needs of the majority have priority over the needs of the minority. In other words, majority rules.

A society based on the rule of multiple minority groups is doomed to fall into divisiveness and factionalism. In other words, united we stand, divided we fall.
 
Wow, that link to the "G-shot" article in the Daily News was pretty impressive.
 
Floh said:
I chose my hairdresser (salon owner) initially because i liked the style she sported, cut and colour, and i've been with her for 5 years now.

btw, she's Lebanese. could be muslim or christian of scientologist, for all i care. i'm interested in having my hair done by someone who can. she has never failed me. the test has clearly been in the ongoing years she's taken care of my hair, but, again, it was because of how she looked when i initially met her which brought my business to her.

Muslim hairdresser accuses salon owner who objected to her headscarf of 'blatant' religious discrimination

The opening shots in a £34,000 employment battle between a pink-haired salon owner and a headscarf-wearing Muslim stylist were fired yesterday with an accusation of "blatant" religious discrimination.


Bushra Noah, 19, is claiming that amount in compensation after being turned down for a job at the Wedge salon, which specialises in "urban, edgy and funky" cuts.

Owner Sarah Desrosiers, 32, says it is an "absolutely basic" job requirement that stylists should have their hair on show if they are to cut other people's. She says she faces financial ruin if she loses the case.


More: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=552048&in_page_id=1770

It IS a basic requirement for the job, IMO. she's trying to pull a fast one and milk a small business owner for more than the small business owner's worth. and would she have even got the job anyway, headscarf or no? political correctness gone wild. business owners must be allowed to select their staff to their liking.

not one single penny should Bushra Noah get! :furious: :furious: :furious:
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more Floh!!
She applies at a salon that is "cutting edge" with an owner with pink hair and she expects to stay covered? I think she may have chose that place as an easy target for a lawsuit.
Gag...I'm soooooooooo sick of the pc BS.:banghead::twocents::Banane37:
 
XcomSquaddie said:
The owner felt that her employees should reflect the style of the shop. She felt that her employees should have visible hair, in essence a dress code.

Companies all over the world have dress codes. Many companies have dress codes that restrict visible body-modifications such as tattoos and piercings.

A salon that has a policy that ALL workers are not allowed to cover their hair is no different than a company that requires ALL workers to wear business dress clothing.

If YOUR religion interferes with a job than it is YOUR problem, not that of the employer.

A society based on democracy holds that the needs of the majority have priority over the needs of the minority. In other words, majority rules.

A society based on the rule of multiple minority groups is doomed to fall into divisiveness and factionalism. In other words, united we stand, divided we fall.
Click to expand...
here's the thing though. if she were LDS and wore garmets - she wouldn't be told to take them off. if she had worn a cross necklace or some other jewlery that had religous connotations, she wouldn't have been told to take it off. it is the head covering that is getting this response.
the fact is, her wearing a headdress didn't change the fact that she could do hair. nothing has been said that she couldn't do hair or wasn't good at her job. just that the store owner had a problem with her head covering. that's a problem.
 
englishleigh said:
I'm so sick of Muslims thinking the entire world should bow down to them....headscarves, foot baths, prayer rooms in airports, etc....where will it end? It's like after 9/11 we were all supposed to treat them as heroes or something, instead of abhor what some of their group did.

Good luck to Sarah...if she has to pay the Muslim woman any money I will totally lose all faith in the world.
Click to expand...

It's unreal what is happening in the world right now. Something has gone very wrong and I wonder where that blame lies??

Good luck to Sarah. Not only do I hope she wins, I hope she turns around and sues for her attorny fees.:mad:
 
pedinurse said:
here's the thing though. if she were LDS and wore garmets - she wouldn't be told to take them off. if she had worn a cross necklace or some other jewlery that had religous connotations, she wouldn't have been told to take it off. it is the head covering that is getting this response.
the fact is, her wearing a headdress didn't change the fact that she could do hair. nothing has been said that she couldn't do hair or wasn't good at her job. just that the store owner had a problem with her head covering. that's a problem.
Click to expand...

The salon Owner felt this woman wasn't right for the position she had open.

Now, just because she applied means she should automatically get the job?

This salon is for funky do's Usually clients like to see what kind of funked out hair the stylist has to capture her/his essence of work.

She didn't fit in there and shouldn't have expected an automatic job,just because she applied. :shrug:
 
pedinurse said:
here's the thing though. if she were LDS and wore garmets - she wouldn't be told to take them off. if she had worn a cross necklace or some other jewlery that had religous connotations, she wouldn't have been told to take it off. it is the head covering that is getting this response.
the fact is, her wearing a headdress didn't change the fact that she could do hair. nothing has been said that she couldn't do hair or wasn't good at her job. just that the store owner had a problem with her head covering. that's a problem.
Click to expand...

There are many jobs, such as in a machine-shop or some hospitals, where jewlery is prohibited.

The owner has every right to set the dress code for her employees.

The owner has every right to hire the person they feel best fits the position.

The owner did not like the headscarf because it concealed the woman's hair. Religion had nothing to do with it.

The plaintiff brought the religion in, not the owner.

This is the real world. You do your job to the best of your ability. You leave politics, religion & prejudice at the door. If a company has rules you follow them. If you don't like those rules, don't work there.
 
XcomSquaddie said:
There are many jobs, such as in a machine-shop or some hospitals, where jewlery is prohibited.

The owner has every right to set the dress code for her employees.

The owner has every right to hire the person they feel best fits the position.

The owner did not like the headscarf because it concealed the woman's hair. Religion had nothing to do with it.

The plaintiff brought the religion in, not the owner.

This is the real world. You do your job to the best of your ability. You leave politics, religion & prejudice at the door. If a company has rules you follow them. If you don't like those rules, don't work there.
Click to expand...


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
 
I'm really sick of this.We really don't need to be concerned about insurgents and terrorists. Little by little we're doing ourselves in.
 
XcomSquaddie said:
This is the real world. You do your job to the best of your ability. You leave politics, religion & prejudice at the door. If a company has rules you follow them. If you don't like those rules, don't work there.
Click to expand...
WHAT?!?!?!
i believe that someone who practices their religion should practice it full time...
and what part of this dresscode of having a head covering was unsafe? it wasn't.
in the end, it was the fact that the headcovering just wasn't the owners preference. well, i'm sorry, but my boss shouldn't have any say over what my religion is, etc.
that's like telling a hindu, who is a taste tester "sorry, but you have to eat the cow here". no one would tell them to do that.
 
pedinurse said:
here's the thing though. if she were LDS and wore garmets - she wouldn't be told to take them off. if she had worn a cross necklace or some other jewlery that had religous connotations, she wouldn't have been told to take it off. it is the head covering that is getting this response.
the fact is, her wearing a headdress didn't change the fact that she could do hair. nothing has been said that she couldn't do hair or wasn't good at her job. just that the store owner had a problem with her head covering. that's a problem.
Click to expand...

The head covering was the problem because the woman would not be sporting a funky hairdo at the salon which was what the salon owner wanted of anyone who worked there. the salon i use has hairdressers who wear black clothes: jeans, t-shirts, tops, whatever. clearly the owner has made this a part of the rule for working there.

i have chosen colours for my hair at that salon purely because i saw hairdressers with those colours, so i understand where Sarah is coming from expecting her staff to show their hair.

no problem, as far as i can see.

what is a problem is when business owners are not allowed to select their own staff for their own reasons.
 
drip~drop said:
The salon Owner felt this woman wasn't right for the position she had open.

Now, just because she applied means she should automatically get the job?

This salon is for funky do's Usually clients like to see what kind of funked out hair the stylist has to capture her/his essence of work.

She didn't fit in there and shouldn't have expected an automatic job,just because she applied. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Exactly what drip~drop said! :clap::clap::clap:
 
pedinurse said:
WHAT?!?!?!
i believe that someone who practices their religion should practice it full time...
and what part of this dresscode of having a head covering was unsafe? it wasn't.
in the end, it was the fact that the headcovering just wasn't the owners preference. well, i'm sorry, but my boss shouldn't have any say over what my religion is, etc.
that's like telling a hindu, who is a taste tester "sorry, but you have to eat the cow here". no one would tell them to do that.
Click to expand...

Well this lady was not even hired. And for good reason. She was not what the shop owner wanted. The shop owner wanted a person that reflected her buisness. A woman that keeps their head covered is not a candidate for this kind of buisness.
That is like telling a Muslim I will hire you to work in a liquor store but I know you will be bad for buisness because you will refuse to sell alcohol. You hire the best person for the job and this lady was not that and we don't know what kind of attitude she may have had or anything about her interview. If you can't live up to the requirements don't think you deserve the job. It is no different than if she had tried for a job prostituting herself in Nevada. If you aren't willing to do certain things why should you be hired.
edited to remove a stupid comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 157 more.
Total: 4,013 (members: 158, guests: 3,855)

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
3,855
Total visitors
4,013
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,532
Messages
17,954,061
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top