The BBC have reported that a sister named Bushra Noah, who was refused a job as a hair stylist because the potential employer regarded her headscarf as being incompatible with the funky image of her salon and thought a hair stylist should have her own hair on display, has won £4,000 compensation. The compensation was for hurt feelings produced by a 15-minute interview; as for the claim of job discrimination itself, it was dismissed on the grounds that the court was satisfied that sr. Bushra was treated no worse than someone who would always have covered their hair for any other reason, i.e. she was not discriminated against just for being Muslim, rather for covering her hair.
The salon owner said she could not understand why someone who was against the display of hair would be in the hair industry, which strikes me as odd, because Muslims are not against the display of hair per se - just its public display. Muslim women are allowed to display their hair when around their family or other women, and no doubt display it to great effect at parties and the like, but they cover it in public. Does the salon just require hair on display, or does it have to be cut and styled as well, since that's what the salon does? Perhaps a woman with too much hair would not have got a job there either.
As the hairdessers' shop is for both men and women there is something a tad hypocritical in a woman who feels obliged to wear a headscarf applying for a job in it at all.
Maybe, but she was trying to earn a living and there is no reason why a woman who covers her hair would not be able to cut and style hair for women who don't. After all, some women go to male hair dressers and they are unlikely to be advertising the styles they are giving the women either.
Many hairdressers wear hats and some are even bald (style or not) - doesn't make them incompatible with the industry. I think the employer was rude at her interview and on the grounds of being hurt is understandable. Although the girl should consider working for a Muslim salon - or open her own.
But she might have been expected to cut men's hair as other women in the shop do. Either Ms Noah knew of this, in which case it was hypocritical to insist on covering her hair, or she did not, in which case the shop-keeper's mistake was giving the wrong reason for refusing to employ her.
I kind of felt for this sister, I recall her saying she had been to dozens of interviews and felt like she had been turned down every time because of her scarf. However, women who wear hijab and niqab face this kind if discrimination every day. I like the fact that rather than going to court to vent their frustration over dozens of incidents on one person, they use their ingenuity to work round these issues. Probably thats why most of the young niqabi's I know are business-women and I recall the niqabi-wearing sister featured in emel last year who was a very talented make-up artist.
I'm not sure what image this projects, alongside the Shabina Begum case and the niqab-wearing teacher and lawyer cases. Are we litigous people that people will be scared to employ or strong women who won't be treated unfairly?
she had a job as a hairdresser before she went to syria to get married. Compensation for "hurt feelings"? Why did she not sue the other 25 employers who refused to employ her then?
but she was trying to earn a living
And Ms Desrosiers was trying to run a business. This was a trendy, funky salon, where Bushra Noah's frumpy image would not fit.
Noah wants to have her cake and eat it. She self-righteously parades her piety, but wants others, that is non-Muslims to take risks on her behalf - in this case the risk that customers would be put off. No doubt, too, she got legal aid for her disgusting lawsuit from the non-Muslim taxpayers, including Desrosiers.
Desrosiers worked twelve-hour days and risked her savings to build up this business. Noah is a spoilt adolescent who has never had to work hard in her life - all she can do is cry and she is rewarded for this.
No, that's too kind - she got £4,000, but the original suit was for £34,000, which would have put Desrosiers out of business. This is vindictive and malicious.
Would a bank be obliged to employ someone who turned up in shorts with piercings and tattoos? No, because the image wouldn't be right.
Suppose a woman wanted to work in an Islamic bookshop and turned up in a mini-skirt and plunging neckline? She'd be rejected because she didn't look the part. Can she sue for "hurt feelings"
And £4,000 for "hurt feelings"? It's outrageous. People's feelings get hurt every day. This whining, parasitical brat deserves not a penny, in fact she should have been made to pay costs to teach her a lesson about the real world.
Next time, Desrosiers and others will know to lie to Muslim applicants, and, rightly or wrongly, be wary of giving them an interview in the first place. Noah has done Muslims a disservice too - not that she'll care as she cares only for herself.
Nobody will give Noah a job now - serve her right, except that she'll be a burden on the taxpayer.