Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Shutterstock/schankz

Barber who refused to cut woman's hair did not discriminate

The woman had been looking for an ‘undercut’.

IT HAS BEEN ruled that a barber shop that refused a woman a haircut did not discriminate.

The Equality Tribunal has ruled that the woman concerned was not discriminated against on grounds of gender under the Equal Status Acts.

This relates to an incident that happened when the complainant, Elaine Carroll, went into Gruaig Barbers in the Liffey Valley Shopping Centre to get a haircut.

What happened? 

The complainant said that she entered the premises of the barber shop on 24 May 2013 to get a haircut, asking the female barber for ‘an undercut’ – a style that would see the side of her head shaved.

As part of the case, Carroll claimed that the female barber said that she was not able to cut women’s hair and would get in trouble if she did so. It was also claimed that the owner of the respondent company said that the staff were not qualified to cut women’s hair and that it was an insurance issue.

Was it discrimination?

The respondent did not dispute the facts put forward in the complaint.

Rather, they stated that the business is operated as a barber shop where the staff are qualified in the cutting of men’s hair.

It is also specified that the insurance the business operates under is specifically for the cutting of men’s hair.

The company referred to a section of the Equal Status Act that states, “differences in the treatment of persons on the gender ground in relation to services of an aesthetic, cosmetic or similar nature, where the services require physical contact between the service provider and the recipient.”

The Equality Officer, Orla Jones, said that the case from the respondent:

Satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced here on behalf of the respondent that the cumulative effect of the defences advanced by the respondent in this case both justify and explain the respondents refusal to provide the complainant with a hair cut.

Read: “If you were loyal to the company, your pregnancy would not be an issue” 

Also: MS sufferer made to do ‘boring, degrading and insulting’ work awarded €20,000 

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
121 Comments
    Submit a report
    Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
    Thank you for the feedback
    Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.
    JournalTv
    News in 60 seconds