A hairdresser is being sued by a Muslim teenager who claims she was knocked back for a job because she wore a headscarf.
Bushra Noah, 19, is suing London-based hairdresser Sarah Desrosiers for religious discrimination in a case estimated to be worth at least £15,000.
Desrosiers has rejected the allegation and says she turned down Noah’s job application because it was an “absolutely basic” requirement that customers could see their stylist’s hair.
“The essence of my line of work is the display of hair,”claims Desrosiers.
“To me, it’s absolutely basic that people should be able to see the stylist’s hair.
“It has nothing to do with religion.
“It is just unfortunate that for her covering her hair symbolises religion.”
Desrosiers said she had never discriminated against Muslims and felt she had been victimised.
“My accountant is Muslim,” she said.
“This girl is suing me for more than I earn in a year.
“I am a small business and have only had my salon a year and a half.”
Noah is an experienced stylist but has been rejected for 25 jobs.
She was invited to work in Desrosiers salon in London for a trial day in March after sending in her resume.
But Noah alleges that when she turned up wearing a headscarf she was discriminated against and treated rudely.
“When I got there, she looked at me in shock,” Noah told the newspaper.
“She started making excuses about wanting someone who lived locally but I knew it was the headscarf.
“She asked if I wore it all the time and I said: ‘Yes’. She asked if I would take it off for work and I said: ‘No’.”
The case is due to be heard by an employment tribunal in January.
13 November 2007
A SALES adviser sacked after he sent text messages to inform his employers he was taking time off and then failed to hand in a sick-note has been awarded almost £7,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal.
Mark Morrison, 36, of Haddington, took time off from tile shop Tile It All (UK) Ltd when he learned his brother was dying last December, an Edinburgh employment tribunal heard.
He called the store to say he would not be at work for two days as his brother’s condition had worsened.
When his brother died on 29 December, he sent a text message to his boss, Robert Selley, the firm’s area manager for Scotland, to advise him. He then sent another text to say he would be off sick until after the funeral.
Mr Morrison told the hearing Mr Selley then phoned and told him to bring a doctor’s certificate in to the shop when he returned. Mr Selley denied this.
Mr Morrison returned to work on 11 January and said that no comment was made when he handed in his sick-line.
But, the hearing learned, he could not cope with his grief and failed to attend work on 15 January.
Instead, he sent text messages to Carol Muir, manager of the shop in Edinburgh’s Seafield, on five consecutive days saying he was depressed and could not come to work. He also said he had been signed off work for two weeks by his doctor with depression.
But before he returned to the store, Mr Morrison received a letter summoning him to a disciplinary hearing for failure to follow company procedures for reporting sickness or absence.
At that disciplinary hearing, he produced his sick-line and denied he knew of any company policy insisting on phonecalls rather than text messages to report absences. He argued that a text had been acceptable when his brother had died and he pointed out he was told to bring in the certificate once he returned to work.
He further noted that he had spoken to Mr Selley about an unrelated matter during his absence and had not been made aware of any problem over the sick-line.
He was subsequently dismissed for failing to follow the company’s policy.
But yesterday the employment tribunal concluded his dismissal was unfair. A ruling issued by the tribunal noted he had not been disciplined or warned informally when he returned to work after his bereavement.
Susan O’Brien, the tribunal chairwoman, said the company’s complaint was petty, and the tribunal did not accept the claimant had been told he must not notify absences via text.
She said that throughout these events, Ms Muir, the local manager and Mr Selley were aware of the reason for the Mr Muir’s absence.
She continued: “The members of the tribunal were astonished that a local manager with only four or five employees to cover could not have phoned and asked for the GP certificate to meet any formal requirements.
“The description of this as deliberate ‘conduct’, meriting dismissal, in the unchallenged context of the claimant’s grief and distress is ridiculous. A modicum of common sense could have straightened all this out.”
Mr Morrison was awarded £6,977 in compensation.
13 November 2007
