Sarah Desrosiers said she needed stylists to showcase alternative hairstyles

But they did find that she had been badly upset by the 15-minute
interview and awarded Mrs Noah £4,000 damages for “injury to feelings”.

In their judgment, the panel stated: “We were satisfied by the
respondent’s evidence that the claimant was not treated less favourably
than the respondent would have treated a woman who, whether Muslim or
not, for a reason other than religious belief wears a hair covering at
all times when at work.”

But they also concluded: “There was no specific evidence before us
as to what would (for sure) have been the actual impact of the cla...

read more»

Sarah Desrosiers said she needed stylists to showcase alternative hairstyles

But they did find that she had been badly upset by the 15-minute
interview and awarded Mrs Noah £4,000 damages for “injury to feelings”.

In their judgment, the panel stated: “We were satisfied by the
respondent’s evidence that the claimant was not treated less favourably
than the respondent would have treated a woman who, whether Muslim or
not, for a reason other than religious belief wears a hair covering at
all times when at work.”

But they also concluded: “There was no specific evidence before us
as to what would (for sure) have been the actual impact of the claimant
working in her salon with her head covered at all times.

“We concluded that, on a critical and balanced assessment, the
degree of risk, while real, should not be assumed to be as great at the
respondent believed.”

Ms Desrosiers, 32, said: “I feel it is a bit steep for what actually happened. It’s really scary for a small business.

“I never in a million years dreamt that somebody would be completely
against the display of hair and be in this industry. I don’t feel I
deserve it.”

She said she still had not appointed someone to the job and had decided to “leave it for a while”.

4000 for this creep's "hurt feelings". Unbelievable.

the rest:

The strategy is clear. Purposely apply for employment with a retailer, firm, restaurant, transport, etc. deliberately knowing the work standards, policy will conflict with Islamic religious/cultural beliefs. When employed or in some instances, upon interview, issue demands that the business accommodate Islam. When denied, launch a complaint with a human rights commission or file a legal suit against the employer citing religious discrimination. This demonstrates an intention, not to comply with the standards set for all employees but an attempt to change the institutions’ standards and work policy from within, to conform to Islam. The nature of the business itself will be ultimate...

the rest:

The strategy is clear. Purposely apply for employment with a retailer, firm, restaurant, transport, etc. deliberately knowing the work standards, policy will conflict with Islamic religious/cultural beliefs. When employed or in some instances, upon interview, issue demands that the business accommodate Islam. When denied, launch a complaint with a human rights commission or file a legal suit against the employer citing religious discrimination. This demonstrates an intention, not to comply with the standards set for all employees but an attempt to change the institutions’ standards and work policy from within, to conform to Islam. The nature of the business itself will be ultimately changed by the force of mistaken notions of reasonable accommodation, while forcing western institutions, to submit to the most abstract and arcane aspects of sharia law.

Take for example the case of supermarket employees who refuse to handle alcohol and have been awarded the right to ask a colleague to do it for them, or taxi drivers who refused to transport blind passengers with seeing-eye dogs or those with alcohol. Or, the instance of female Muslim employees refusing to comply with safety standards while loading cartons in a UPS warehouse, or that of a Muslim chef who sued the Met when asked to cook pork. It’s becoming much trickier for employers leading financial institutions as well.