To expect an exception for bf baby?

[PatchItUp]

I have a 2 month old baby who is exclusively breastfed. Today I’ve got a hairdressers appointment for the first time in months and I’ve been really looking forward to it. I’m having cut and colour so may be a few hours. I’d expressed some milk and my DH is going to try giving him a bottle for the first time.

I mentioned when I arrived that this was the situation and that if he refused the bottle, my DH would bring the baby in to be fed then take him away again. I’ve done this in a different hairdressers with my older children before with no problem.

The receptionist said there was a no children policy and therefore I wouldn’t be able to bring him in. I was a bit shocked and reiterated that he is very young, exclusively bf and couldn’t be left hungry if he wouldn’t take the bottle. She said she would check with the hairdresser.

Hairdresser came and said much the same thing - no child policy, if we make an exception for you we have to make one for everyone and customers will complain. I said again that I understood a no child policy to prevent toddlers running around or making noise but this would be a small baby coming in for a feed and then out again. She said she would check with the manager.

Manager heard and said from across the room ‘there’s nowhere for you to go’. By this point all the customers are listening and I felt really conscious and upset about being argued with by three different members of staff. I was fairly sure that this was illegal refusal of services but not totally confident so I said ‘I don’t need to go anywhere, he’ll just be on my lap, have a feed then go again’. They all again said it’s company policy, they can’t make any exceptions. The manager said ‘what’s the percentage chance he’ll need to come in?’ And one of the women said ‘there’s a good chance he’ll just take the bottle so why not take the risk?’ I replied I couldn’t take the risk that he wouldn’t take it and would be left screaming and hungry and not allowed to come in.

Eventually the manager reluctantly agreed that he could be brought in if necessary but it was clear they were really unhappy about it and it’s soured the experience for me massively.

When I checked on my phone it seems they’re acting illegally in refusing services to a breastfeeding mother, although I guess they could argue it’s down to chemical hazards (although this wasn’t mentioned at any time as a reason).

So - was I being unreasonable? And would I be unreasonable to complain later on?

I know some people will say I should have just left but my hair is such a state!! And I’ve been really looking forward to having it cut and having a few hours to myself.

Yabvu.

^V surprised to hear that you're a solicitor - hope you've got good PI
because this post is 100 percent wrong - the EqA applies both to employment and provision of services (a solicitor would know that perfectly well).^

It does indeed. Absolutely nothing in my post suggested otherwise. It is simply that the Equality Act does not say what you appear to think it does. In particular, it does not prevent a breastfeeding woman from being refused service for a reason unrelated to the breastfeeding.

Obviously we don't know whether the salon in question would take the same approach with a formula fed baby, so there isn't enough to say whether they are in breach.

You don't even have sufficient information to ascertain whether she could lawfully be denied entry, because we don't know if the no babies ban is equally applied to all of them or just the breastfed ones.

The relevant sections of the EqA come under pregnancy and maternity (section 17) and indirectly under sex as well. There is specific provision for discrimination related to having given birth within the previous 26 weeks which particularly relates to breastfeeding, but whether baby is breast or bottle fed is a red herring.

It’s not the end of the world, people these days are so entitled

tier I’ll try one last time and then I really think I’m done as MN have really disappointed me over this.

Robust discussion is fine but personal and misogynistic attacks are another.

But the discussion isn’t about is the baby discriminated against. It’s the mother.

@Tier20million the op said they said no as they have a no children policy so not to do with breastfeeding
But many in here imply everywhere has to let you in if breastfeeding incl nightclubs which I didn't think was right

If I read one more post that compares briefly feeding a small baby in a hair salon to a night club I think I will sob!

I'm mixed on this one.
As they haven't actually given a reason (other than children not allowed...which is in itself a valid reason but often this rule doesn't include breastfed babies ie cinema, weddings etc), I'd be annoyed at being told no on the day. However I would always check in advance.
As it is their policy and they said no, I'm sure they do have a reason, so who am I to argue with them? They're a private business and can do this (obvs within reason).
When getting your hair done, do you sit under the heat lamps? Having to go back and forth to get your hair washed where you have to lay back? It's not very practical for breastfeeding?

YABU. I work in a salon and we were family friendly until covid hit. We can't take the risk. It's not anything personal it's just their rules. Also I work in a salon and can't tell you how frustrating it is, having a child make an appt run over making you late for the rest of the day and stopping you doing your job properly. Also very disruptive for other clients. X

God, and they say child free women are judgemental!

@MMMarmite Do they now? Who is 'they'?

The number of women on here insisting it's a violation of the Equality Act is actually terrifying. It's not. Not at all. It would be illegal if they said "No breastfeeding women allowed" or "No mothers allowed". It's perfectly legal to say "No children" - and if that child happens to be breastfed then that's still fine.

@BuggerBognor

*V surprised to hear that you're a solicitor - hope you've got good PI because this post is 100 percent wrong - the EqA applies both to employment and provision of services (a solicitor would know that perfectly well).*

I’m also a solicitor and I agree withb@Tier20million. The EA does not say what you think it says and reading the maternity action group’s website is no substitute.

Are you telling me that the EqA doesn't apply both to employment and services, BuggerBognor?

The relevant sections of the EqA come under pregnancy and maternity (section 17) and indirectly under sex as well. There is specific provision for discrimination related to having given birth within the previous 26 weeks which particularly relates to breastfeeding, but whether baby is breast or bottle fed is a red herring.

No, it is not. It would in this instance be a suitable way to ascertain whether the discrimination relates to OP and her baby breastfeeding, which would be illegal, or to a no babies whatever the mode of feeding rule, which would not. Once again, sex related protections do not give a woman rights she would not otherwise have, and do not make age limits in a private business unlawful.

But the discussion isn’t about is the baby discriminated against. It’s the mother.

That, at least is correct. But a blanket no babies policy is not a breach of the Equality Act simply because it affects a breastfeeding mother.

@SonnyWinds agreed, people on here seem so easy to cry ‘discrimination’

[quote SonnyWinds]**@MeadowsInSunshine* Well actually, no children means no children, unless you need to breastfeed, which you are entitled to do.*
No children means no children. Why would you think breastfeeding entitles you to break that rule?! Genuinely curious why you think breastfeeding changes the rule?[/quote]
Because it does, according to the equality act 2010, which includes ANY public place. As I stated previously up thread, a company's own policy does not trump the actual law.

But many in here imply everywhere has to let you in if breastfeeding incl nightclubs which I didn't think was right

It isn't.

YABU OP - if you can't feed your child adequately without taking it to a hairdressing salon, then you should not be going. Think of the other clients - they want a calm, peaceful experience, not a screaming child and a mother feeding it in the salon. Sorry, it is not on.

@Somethingsnappy because it does
What a compelling argument. And, for the record, no it doesn't. They can't refuse access to a breastfeeding mother, they can refuse access to a child. If that child happens to be breastfed and the exclusion of the child happens to prevent her breastfeeding then that's not a violation of the law. Children are excluded from a multitude of places for a multitude of reasons and it's perfectly legal.

I wouldn’t (and didn’t) have my hair done until my dc were at a stage where they could reliably be left without my boobs for long enough. Dd was quite early but ds was several months old. That was without any COVID related issues.

Avoided the stress for me worrying, for dh as not left with a hungry baby refusing bottle and for dc.

I don’t necessarily think yabu but it just doesn’t seem like a great plan.

I don't think you are being unreasonable, it is an 8 week old baby. I've only ever felt supported when I was bf my babies. Been for spa days and had a private room to pump in and use of a fridge etc. I would personally find a new hairdressers as I'm sure most would accommodate you x

I dont think you're being unreasonable at all

OP, I didnt go to the hairdressers for over 7 months for the same reason (my baby wouldn't take a bottle) so I didn't even attempt it.
I would have felt very awkward breastfeeding in a small hairdressers whilst people were trying to enjoy their haircuts. Even if the baby isn't screaming, not everyone wants to see it.
A hairdressers is also not the best place for a small baby with all the fumes from dyes and hairspray flying about.