Lisa Shea Forums General Discussion Politics Was she entitled to the money?

This story attracted my attention for a variety of reasons: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368306,00.html [quote]A hair salon owner in London claims her business was driven to the brink of ruin after she was ordered to pay $7,800 to a Muslim woman who claimed her feelings were hurt after she was not hired because she wouldn’t show her hair at work, The Daily Mail reported Wednesday. Wedge salon owner Sarah Desrosiers requires employees to showcase different looks for clients, as her shop specializes in alternative cuts and colors. Bushra Noah, 19, who made it clear during her interview that she would not remove her head scarf for religious reasons, accused Desrosiers of discrimination. Desrosiers, 32, was ordered to pay Noah $7,800 for indirect discrimination by way of "injury to feelings," ................ [/quote] I am a small business owner myself and am always a bit appalled at some legal judgements. Was the owner really discriminating against the applicant, or simply making a decision regarding how effective she would be as a representative of a hair salon, if she wore a head covering all the time. If it was discrimination-then why was the judgement for "injury to feelings", did anyone else know you could sue someone because they "hurt your feelings"?

I don't even know what to say to this. I only hope Sarah Desrosiers can garner enough support to appeal this rediculous injustice. Does this mean that if you interview someone you have to hire them even if they do not fill the requirements of the job?

That is how I read it as well, worse the "victim" says she had already interviewed at up to 25 other hair salons without being hired, does that mean she only sued Sarah Desrosiers because she was honest about why she wouldn't be hiring her?

I think that's it - you learn in the corporate world you never say why you didn't hire or why you fired.

This is the kind of silliness (i.e., damages for emotional distress) that makes you hate lawyers.

well the upshot of this is that the lawyer got half

This was such a bogus ruling. The job requirements were in place before the interview. The decision was made before she ever saw this woman. Hense the decision was just incorrect. She did not refuse to hire her because she would not remove her scarf. She did not hire her because she did not fit the job requirements. I definitely think she should appeal and would win.

I hope she appeals - this would be a terrible precedent to let stand.

There is more on it here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...ldnt-hair.html#

The thing is, the girl believes that she didn't get the job because of the headscarf ~ and it appears that this was, indeed, the main reason ~ and since the headscarf is part of her religion, then this comes finally to religious discrimination.

The same thing happened with the schoolgirl who insisted on wearing the jilbab to school. (We discussed this before on the forum and it resulted in some of the unpleasantness that disrupted us recently.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4310545.stm

Human rights measures allow for this sort of thing.
The argument will probably go back and forth, as it did with the uniform issue.

I assume that many Muslims would agree with these girls ~ that they cannot live fulfilling lives, that conform to their beliefs, if they are going to be discriminated against in this way.

I wasn't trying to create any controversy with this posting. I was curious(particularily as a small business owner myself)-to see if people thought the award was deserved. I understand the issues-but frankly didn't see her not being hired as an act of discrimination. I was also somewhat amazed the court would give her a monetary award over "hurt feelings". I suppose I saw this more along the lines of say a vegan chef not being hired at a steak house, or better an Amish person not being hired as a cosmetics consultant!