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.

It is annoying but that's one of the reasons I switched to a home hairdresser. So much easier when you've got young kids.

@Nomorepies

YANBU! I'm really sorry this happened to you and they weren't more accommodating.

My salon has let me bring in my toddler and baby to beauty appointments. One time my tiny baby came to my hair app. Baby just breastfed nd slept on me the whole time. Even when I moved over to have my hair washed etc. No one bagged an eyelid- they were super happy and encouraged me to do so.

This pandemic has made people very inflexible

That's lovely, but this salon has a no children policy, I wouldn't be happy to leave my children at home only to have other people's children/babies around

If your husband came into the salon unnecessarily and then presented with a postive test the next day your hairdresser would have to self isolate. hairdressers have been shut for almost 10 months since the beginning of the pandemic, regardless of their no child policy someone extra should not be in the salon when there is no need, they will have a maximum capacity, having your child and husband in the salon may take them over their max capacity

[quote Fuebombaa]@Biancadelrioisback if they’re hungry enough they’ll eat[/quote]
Why are people STILL spouting this crap? @Fuebombaa multiple posters including myself have posted situations when their babies have chosen not to feed. Babies are more complicated than just ‘when they’re hungry they’ll eat’, it’s bollocks.

Wow. YANBU and I would seriously take your business elsewhere. Where is the understanding and kindness? Sounds like an awful place to be so rude to you. I hope you are ok and that you can find a much nicer salon!

@FeeLock

Has anyone posted this info yet?

The Equality Act 2010 has specifically clarified that it is unlawful for a business to discriminate against a woman because she is breastfeeding a child. A business may ask a breastfeeding woman to leave their premises if the reason for this request is not due to her breastfeeding.1 Oct 2010

Equality Act 2010 - Gov.uk

For anyone interested, link to the guidance you quote from is below:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85008/business-quickstart.pdf

Page 4.

You have to obey the rules of the salon, so that's all there is to it. And surely your Husband is able to feed your baby.

@Tier20million

I can't see how your explanation holds.

a breastfeeding woman from being refused service for a reason unrelated to the breastfeeding.

This isn't what's happening tho.

The breastfeeding woman is allowed service. She's not being refused.

The issue is that for the duration of that service her baby may need to be fed. If she is not allowed feed the baby, she is being discriminated against. The baby cannot otherwise be fed, in this scenario.

I think they handled it badly. I also think that you should have fed baby just before appointment and then your dh should have been able to cope. I think you should have chosen a less posh and more family friendly kind of place. Your main error was in asking first. If he had needed to bring in the baby, they were much less likely to refuse if he had turned up with the screaming baby and you with your hair covered in dye. Next time, say nothing.

@1forAll74

You have to obey the rules of the salon, so that's all there is to it. And surely your Husband is able to feed your baby.

@1forAll74 has he grown tits? Wow, what a husband...

@PatchItUp you are absolutely not being unreasonable. I am astounded by some of the completely vile comments on here and it always upsets me to see women attacking women. Horrible.

As a PP said, no wonder the breastfeeding rates are so low in this country if people have attitudes like the above.

I think it's really unfair of the salon to be like that with you and I certainly wouldn't go back. I have a mobile hairdresser now and it's much easier with my BF dc.

Hope you feel better having your hair done 💐 it's been really hard being pregnant and having a newborn in the pandemic and I wish you well.

@PatchItUp

Thanks for replies so far, it’s interesting to see the opinions. I really find it surprising how many people would be livid about a baby coming in to a room, sitting on my lap to be fed for 15 minutes, then leaving. He’d obviously be silent for the 15 minutes it takes to feed him. How would that impact on anyone else’s haircut experience?

I imagine the baby would be crying if he was hungry and refusing a bottle. So whilst the baby may be quiet during the feed, he would most likely be crying when coming into the salon.

Could you not find a mobile hairdresser who could come and do your hair at home?

@RightYesButNo

So... does OP want to know if they’re being unreasonable or if it’s illegal? Because we’re several hundred comments in and it would appear OP is never going to agree she was being unreasonable, so I see no point in saying anything on that count.

Now, people going back and forth on the legality and so many saying it’s illegal but OP rather flippantly put the most important bit:
I guess they could argue it’s down to chemical hazards (although this wasn’t mentioned at any time as a reason).
Doesn’t matter if it was mentioned at the time; they’re protected. Straight from Maternity Action UK:
It is NOT against the law to prevent a woman breastfeeding where there are legitimate health and safety risks, for example, near to certain chemicals or radiation.
maternityaction.org.uk/advice/breastfeeding-in-public-places/
And since they have a no children policy, they might have an even stronger leg to stand on (ex. since some studies on fumes are inconclusive, they have made the decision simply to allow only adults who can decide for themselves). And two hairstylists and a manager may not know why the owner made a no child policy; it’s the owner’s job to make the policies they think will best protect the business and mitigate risk.

OP seems to have a ready answer for everything, though - she insisted she wouldn’t be upset if baby swallowed some of her cut hair, and that the dye is not liquid enough to drip on a baby and it would be in foils AND that the baby could not reach the foils from her breast. Seriously? I’m glad the hairstylists and manager involved are thinking more about possible problems than OP. So babies are never lifted or adjusted before or after a feed, putting the baby closer to the foils? Dye is always in one single chemical state - a firm enough gloop that never, ever drips? (If this were the case, they’d never have to do skin allergy tests because they could just rest assured the dye will stay only on the hair ). A mother is okay with her baby swallowing a choking hazard? Honestly, come off it. I know OP wants to justify herself, but this is all just too far.

YABU, which OP will never agree to, and it’s not illegal, with dangerous chemicals as the justification (as I’m sure if OP tried to take some kind of action, this is the answer she’d get), whether they told her at the time or not.

Exactly, and the few posters on here who have been bleating "you can't legally stop a woman breastfeeding" over and over, don't seem to be able to see the bigger picture. The salon could be in big trouble if something did happen to the baby while on their premises. Who wants to be the stylist with the responsibility of trying to colour or cut someone's hair while they feed a tiny baby. Also, I'm sure none of the stylists want to have to push back other appointments, or have to run over their working time, to let a customer stop half way through their hair cut, for half an hour. Especially at the moment.

Tier20million

Thanks for the clarity of your posts. I went away and looked at the relevant legislation and thought I'd misunderstood because so many posters were confidently asserting the OP had been discriminated against. In order to claim discrimination the OP would have prove she had been treated less favourably because she was bf but in this instance she has actually been treated more favourably than other customers by obtaining an exception to the no children policy.
I hope posters take your explanation on board or I can see arguments happening in cinemas where a bf mum wants to take her 2 year old into an 18 rated film because she believes the law in on her side.

[quote EarringsandLipstick]@Tier20million

I can't see how your explanation holds.

a breastfeeding woman from being refused service for a reason unrelated to the breastfeeding.

This isn't what's happening tho.

The breastfeeding woman is allowed service. She's not being refused.

The issue is that for the duration of that service her baby may need to be fed. If she is not allowed feed the baby, she is being discriminated against. The baby cannot otherwise be fed, in this scenario.
[/quote]
I'll try again. A private business has no legal obligation to permit a baby/infant to enter, even when the effect of this is that the mother can't practically use the services because she's breastfeeding. As long as the reason for the baby being kept out is because they don't let any babies in at all, rather than because of the breastfeeding, it's legal.

It would only be discriminatory in this case if a woman with a formula fed baby was allowed to bring the baby in to feed it, as that would mean the reason for the baby being refused entry was the breastfeeding. A blanket no baby ban at a private business isn't a breach of the Equality Act in itself.

YANBU. Such a small thing for them to accommodate.

@FOJN

Tier20million

Thanks for the clarity of your posts. I went away and looked at the relevant legislation and thought I'd misunderstood because so many posters were confidently asserting the OP had been discriminated against. In order to claim discrimination the OP would have prove she had been treated less favourably because she was bf but in this instance she has actually been treated more favourably than other customers by obtaining an exception to the no children policy.
I hope posters take your explanation on board or I can see arguments happening in cinemas where a bf mum wants to take her 2 year old into an 18 rated film because she believes the law in on her side.

Thank you, glad it was helpful. This does seem to be an area that's commonly misunderstood, people get really mixed up.

What a miserable lot you all are. It’s a 2 month old baby needing a feed not a moaning 3 year old running round tantrumming. Have some patience.

YABU and entitled

@Lemonelderflower

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 hear you Lemon

My DS’s were EBF too, but I never expected to feed them in the hairdressers, and especially not in COVID times, YABU.

[quote PatchItUp]@Crunchymum the previous place closed down. The manager of this place used to work at my old hairdressers.

@BonasthatBonas you seem very unhappy about this. If it took an extra 15 minutes of course I would happily pay for the extended time, however there’s no reason it should.

Sorry I can’t remember who said I should have given him a big feed before I left, of course I did do this. I have also left milk for him. I just don’t know if he’ll take it, bringing him in would be a worst case scenario.

Yes I could have trialled a bottle before this, I should have done. But having said that, my first DC took bottles fine most of the time but occasionally would refuse one for no apparent reason. Babies can be unpredictable and I wouldn’t like to know there is no chance I can feed him in the unlikely scenario that he needs it.

If I had been made aware of the no child policy I would have discussed this with the hairdressers prior to the appointment.[/quote]
@PatchItUp “you seem very unhappy about this. If it took an extra 15 minutes of course I would happily pay for the extended time”

You think that you happily paying would solve the problem? What about the hairdresser’s next client? Are they expected to happily wait because your appointment took longer? They maybe have something else they need to get to that wouldn’t allow for a longer time away (could even be getting home to feed their ebf baby who they left at home)!

YABVVU and selfish!

I must have an amazing hairdresser as I was always able to bring my BF son with me. I did ask and they were so accommodating including pushing his pram while my hair was being washed so he would sleep. When I had in dyed I had him brought in for a feed no issues.

It's a bit ridiculous to expect three or four hours away from a breastfeeding 2 month old, so in the real world most people make sensible decisions about how to make sure the baby's needs are met first and the rest of their life needs to fit around that, for the very short time in your life when you are required to do this.

As breastfeeding mother of a small baby, you have my support OP. I think that's awful of the salon. I'd prefer to take my business elsewhere. I took my DC to previous apps (when they were under 6months), I didn't even ask beforehand if it was OK. Luckily they were as good as gold & slept each time.