I don’t think the Muslim community has much to do with this. This woman has simply chosen to exploit a highly illiberal aspect of our law. THIS is political correctness gone mad!

THIS is political correctness gone mad!

Agreed

Stupid ruling. Where are the people that awarded her the money, they should have to justify there actions.

“Injury to feelings”

WTF?

While I can understand the hairdressers’ perspective (if employees are informally or formally understood to expect that their job is not only to cut hair, but to advertise the quality of hair cuts on offer), covering her own hair does not actually interfere with her ability to do the job at hand. It also doesn’t necessarily interfere with her ability to project “funky” or “urban” in other ways.

b) Why would someone who believes that women should cover up their hair in public want a job as a hairdresser anyway?

Just because she covers up her own hair, why do you think that mean she believes that all women should do the same?

I loathe it when people who complain about “political correctness gone mad” -four times out of five their complaints are the purest bollocks. The anoying thing with cases like this is it gives the likes of Littlejohn, Phillips et al succour because it IS unfair. A decent argument could be made either way as to whether she should have been employed or not, but the 4 grand pay off is without a doubt way too much. Its precisely cases like this, no doubt unrepresentative, that allow attacks on “multi-culturalism” to get the hearing they do.

I’m sorry, but everyone’s a loser in this story.

One loser is £4k better off, though.

“four times out of five their complaints are the purest bollocks”

Maybe, but (like I think you’re trying to say) it’s real cases like this that substantiate said complaints.

It is this sort of nonsense that fuels the “political correctness” argument – because maybe sometimes it’s bollocks, or twisted out of all proportion – but sometimes it isn’t!

I’m not so sure that this is political correctness gone mad. The question is as to the reasonableness of requiring someone who works in a hairdressing salon to have fabulous hair. There is no necessary connection between ‘having nicely done hair’ and ‘being able to do hair nicely’. Indeed, I have had my hair cut (very nicely, as it happens) by someone totally bald.

If someone with fabulous hair started working at a hair salon and then lost their hair (whether through age or some illness), would it be legitimate to fire them? What if someone converted to Islam or Sikhism and then felt the need to cover their head?

xD.

@Dave Cole: There’s a debate there, I agree.

What there can surely be no debate about is that £4000 for “injury to feelings” is nothing less than ridiculous.

“If someone with fabulous hair started working at a hair salon and then lost their hair (whether through age or some illness), would it be legitimate to fire them?”

You’ve got a point, but seriously…are we telling people that they can’t hire for reasons that aren’t down to sexuality, race or religion? I didn’t realise it was law that employers had to accept anyone that wanted a job as long as they met the minimum criteria. It’s this why the idea of a £4k pay out on the issue is ludicrous.

Indeed, I have had my hair cut (very nicely, as it happens) by someone totally bald.

Good point that illustrates that there is an issue here. I am sure that a bald man, at least, would not have been turned away simply for being bald.

As the the amount of the award – well, what should it have been? Surely she has lost out on a job with a salary much higher than that. If the discrimination is real, I see no reason why she shouldn’t get compensation.

She should have been awarded costs. That’s it. Not being given a job is not a reason for compensation.

So Wedge doesn’t believe anyone who covered their hair should be in a salon , its nothing to do with them being asian-in-a-headscarf types. Presumably the salon makes sure that no men in dodgy hats are allowed in their doors either.

“I didn’t realise it was law that employers had to accept anyone that wanted a job as long as they met the minimum criteria.”

This is not the case. Both employer and employee told the tribunal that most of the discussion was about her headscarf and that this was the reason why she was not being employed.

Well done to Bushra Noah for deciding to take this to tribunal, it’s a pretty brave thing for a 19 year old to do, particularly once the case started to attract the attention of the media, not to mention the knuckle-draggers mentioned at the end of the article.

It is common for employers to choose not to hire, or even interview, potential employees because of where they live, their name or, as in this case, irrelevant details about how they dress. If this award makes other employers think twice about doing this in the future, then all the better. Surely liberty includes having the chance to apply for a job and be judged on how well you can do it?

You know, this really isn’t a particularly controversial application of the law.

The UK anti-discrimination statutes ban both direct discrimination, deciding based on the particular characteristic, and indirect discrimination, using a criterion which in effect leads to a discrepancy, unless it can be objectively justified. So to illustrate the latter with an example of sex discrimination, you cannot have a strength test unless it is justified. To say otherwise would allow sex discrimination by the back door.

Exactly the same principle applies here. Its pretty obvious that using a headscarf criterion is going to lead to far fewer Muslims being hired, so the requirement would need to be justified. The baldness thought experiment shows that it is not, so it is a simple matter of common sense that she should be compensated.

(In fact, from this comment – “I never in a million years dreamt that somebody would be completely against the display of hair and be in this industry” – I suspect it was more about the religion than the headscarf, but that’s besides the point.)

You can argue against anti-discrimination laws in general, one’s preventing religious discrimination in particular, or just the inclusion of indirect discrimination (although that would make non-discrimination very difficult to enforce). But if you accept all of them, this result is absolutely correct.

simply chosen to exploit a highly illiberal aspect of our law

what’s the illiberal aspect of the law Nick? Shouldn’t there be any anti-discrimination laws? Pejar’s comment above illustrates clearly what the issue is. Do you disagree with it? Or another excuse to scream “political correctness gone mad?”

What this case shows is that employers should be less open and honest than the hairdresser when it comes to not employing a particular applicant. It would have been better for all concerned to have said something bland along the lines of,

“I am sorry to inform you that another applicant was selected for the position, however, we will keep your name on file in case a suitable vacancy arises.”

It is very much easier to be less open and honest than to tell the truth and later have to show an employment tribunal “specific evidence… as to what would (for sure) have been the actual impact of the claimant ” being employed.

what’s the illiberal aspect of the law Nick?

I hazard a guess that it relates to an employer not being free to decide who he will employ (or not).

It’s important to note that the tribunal dismissed the claim of religious discrimination, but found the claimant was “indirectly discriminated” against.

“So Wedge doesn’t believe anyone who covered their hair should be in a salon , its nothing to do with them being asian-in-a-headscarf types. Presumably the salon makes sure that no men in dodgy hats are allowed in their doors either.”

Well, this is a grounds they lost on, anyway. The reaction in The Sun form might’ve been slightly different if the employer had taken the same approach to someone who’d lost their hair through illness.

The practical situation and legal judgment would’ve been exactly the same, though.

That said, the employer’s decision not to employ the lady is clearly the correct one. Her mistake was not finding a more tactful of doing it. Like conducting the interview in the normal fashion and then politely giving the job to someone else.

It is absolutely reasonable for an employer to not hire a job applicant due to choices that applicant has made. For example, if I owned a very high end restaurant I would not hired someone with a nose ring and a tattoo of a monkey on their face to be my maitre d’. It is wrong to refuse to hire someone based on an aspect of their appearance over which they have no control (eg. someone who has gone bald) but it is absolutely ok to no hire someone due to choices they have made that may negatively affect your business (eg. wearing a head scarf because they believe a great big invisible magic guy in the sky wants them to). Behaviour like that is insane. While Christians and other religious wackos have similar nutty traditions, most of them are benign and aren’t visible nor do they affect their ability to perform a job (like praying five times a day would).

“It is wrong to refuse to hire someone based on an aspect of their appearance over which they have no control (eg. someone who has gone bald) but it is absolutely ok to no hire someone due to choices they have made”

I understand your moral point and don’t necessarily disagree with it but I don’t see how this could be sustainable as a legal position.

In the case of baldness, would someone who’d gone partly bald lose their legal protection at the point where they choose to shave off the rest of their hair?