Last year I think it was, a young muslim woman wasn't given a job in a hairdresser because she insisted on wearing a head-covering. The salon owner said it wasn't appropriate, she needed her staff to show their hair so customers could have some confidence in their abilities. The young muslim woman was awared several thousand pounds in settlement out of court and the salon owner was screwed. I'd love to know what rros's opinion on that would be, whether the young muslim woman was in the right to threaten to ruin the salon owner even further with a court case? Did I mention she was muslim.
The hairdresser was an idiot.
You don't need to give a reason for not employing someone and if an applicant does ask for feedback all you say is either you fell short of our expectations or we had more suitable applicants.
Last edited by Deeranged; 19-01-2021 at 05:23 PM.
Yes. I'd say it has been tested as the potential defendant gave in without a fight and admitted liability.
I can't get the better of Mike Tyson, I don't need that to be put to the test in a ring.
The authorities and media instead of trying to hide this case or not cover it on MSM should be alerting business owners that this is the consequence of discriminating.
Luckily I've not come across much of it here and hopefully it continues to be the case or is disability discrimination laws which were hard fought for and won over the decades gonna be ignored under the guise of covid as well as numerous other things.
Woman was perfectly entitled to shop, they refused entry, she with backing threatened to sue......They admitted discrimination and paid out.......I don't think there's much more to say.
I don't think she's went out of her way to find an excuse, shes no a serial pavement stripper or falling Doon manholes type of person.
As for the hairdresser, why give that as a reason for not giving someone a job.
Stupid and opened himself or herself up to being sued.
So you really have to say Muslim woman was within her rights.
If it's the case they are just presuming that's why she didn't get the job then that's wrong.
Hairdressers.....learn to lie.....you do it with 95% of your customers anyway.🙄
Pavement stripper...ffs....Pavement tripper
The answer is that the action of the salon owner was racist and therefore exactly the same as the action of the shopkeeper in that both actions fall foul of legislation.
Whether or not one agrees with the outcome of these incidents depends on whether you agree that both incidents fall within the legal definitions of the relevant legislation. Since both were settled out of court there is no legal decision and perhaps the law might have rejected both claims. I am sitting on the fence!