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.

I’ll leave this here as I know I’ll get loads more grief about being a special snowflake but legally they were in the wrong even if morally you feel they weren’t. Thanks all.
💐 I would email the hairdressers and tell them they are breaking the law. I’d then find somewhere else to spend my money.

YANBU... folk would do well to remember how difficult it it so to have a baby so small and be EBF. A bit of compassion and facilitating something that was obviously a long awaited treat for OP would not go amiss. And at 2 months the baby can not move much/grab things so the health and safety argument doesn’t really apply. Hope you are ok OP

YABU

I took my DD in when I was breastfeeding. I do think they were a bit unkind in the way they refused you, OP, but IMO you should have just booked a cut and left the dyeing until later on.

Not BU. What a ridiculous unsupportive hair salon, I’ve done the same multiple occasions.

This thread really is horrendous. What spiteful, venomous posts

Thanks @AliceMcK for replying to @Biancadelrioisback post before I saw it :) you covered it!

Sorry but you're being unreasonable and a bit of a spoilt brat. They said no. It may be insurance purposes or it may be that they're worried about damaging baby lungs with the chemicals, or something dropping on him. Have you seen a child's burnt hand after touching hair straighteners - it's horrific

It makes me very pissed off that anyone who bf their child feels they can piss all over everything else to get their way - sort an alternative or just get a different set up like a mobile hairdresser who will allow you to bf
By the way they don't need to tell all customers their full set of rules - they'd take ages every conversation to explain simple things that should be brought up when making the appointment

T*ier
*
I would have to hold that that approach is indirectly discriminatory as defined under the Equality Act:

This can happen when an organisation puts a rule or a policy or a way of doing things in place which has a worse impact on someone with a protected characteristic than someone without one.

You are going. For a. Colour not just a trim so it isn't going to be easy to feed the baby Is it the hairdresser has a no children policy I think you need to re think your appointment.

@Tier20million

Thanks for your comments on the thread, you’ve been incredibly patient and civil and it’s really helpful. It’s a common problem in forums where every Tom, Dick and Harry can share their view equally that misinformation is shared with such confidence, leads to a lot of muddying of the waters and confused readers who then feel validated and that their opinion must be accurate because of someone else’s incorrect take on an act or law. I appreciate you taking the time to write simple and accurate comments!

@AppleAppleAppleApple if they refuse and starve themselves to death then there’s clearly an issue 🤦🏻‍♀️

Fwiw I think the salon sounds snooty and they were rude but they don't have to accomodate you.

YANBU and if I were you I wouldn’t use that salon again.

YABU. My hairdresser has a no child policy too, no exceptions. I'd never dream to question it as it is for a reason and some people specifically go there because of that. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, I really don't mean it that way, but next time try and find a hairdressers that allow children in. (Yes, I've got a little one too)

I have 2 children. Both exclusively breastfed for the first12 months. No bottles at all. I would have just left. It’s only hair!

@NamiSwan

I'm going against the grain here versus previous posters but I think Yanbu, it's a 2 month old baby.

what customers are going to complain about this? Its clearly not the same as bringing in a small child for the whole of your appointment.

What actual risks are there having a 2 month old baby in the hairdressers for the 10-15 mins it takes to feed?

I'd just take my business elsewhere tbh.

I've a 6 month old baby, and I'm going to hairdressers next week and I'm so looking forward to not listening to any kids whinging and crying for a couple of hours. I also breast feed, its not discrimination.

I am not going to say I doubt Tier's qualification but I do take issue with this:

I appreciate you taking the time to write simple and accurate comments!

I don't think it is possible to be as definitive as Tier has been.

Discrimination can occur directly and indirectly. If OP cannot avail of a service as a breastfeeding mother, on the grounds that children are prohibited, that is indirect discrimination.

YABU.

Yabu. !

@moonwatcher1234 yep you're right it can be difficult to breast feed a baby. I can remember having to change my DC's nappies several times whilst breastfeeding or the time my DS brought up an entire feed on the sofa whilst I burped him or the times they mysteriously decided to feed for an hour rather than the normal 20 minutes. These are just a few of the reasons I think a hairdressers isn't a place for an EBF baby.
And for everyone saying ooh but I took my EBF baby and the hairdresser was fine about it, was this pre or post pandemic? Life has changed rather a lot since then for everyone. Hairdressers haven't been able to work for months on end, I don't blame them for being cautious.

Put it this way, is your hair appointment more important than feeding your baby?

[quote Fuebombaa]@AppleAppleAppleApple if they refuse and starve themselves to death then there’s clearly an issue 🤦🏻‍♀️[/quote]
@Fuebombaa yes, as I said my baby ended up in hospital. Glad that elicited a facepalm from you. Babies don’t just take bottles when they’re hungry. That’s not how babies work. It’s ridiculous to say ‘if he’s hungry, he’ll eat’.

YANBU. I have an appt coming up at the end of the month and I have told them my husband will be bringing my six month old in if necessary (also doesn't take a bottle, and frankly no point trying since we're all at home all the time).

I haven't had my hair done since December 2019. I look a bloody fright. I'm keeping that appt!

@EarringsandLipstick

T*ier * I would have to hold that that approach is indirectly discriminatory as defined under the Equality Act:

This can happen when an organisation puts a rule or a policy or a way of doing things in place which has a worse impact on someone with a protected characteristic than someone without one.

No, it isn't. Sounds like you might be mixing up the different duties that public sector organisations and private businesses not exercising public functions like a hairdresser have under the Equality Act. Public bodies have to do more, as you'd expect.

This is quite useful.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/public-sector-equality-duty/what-s-the-public-sector-equality-duty/

Because of the public sector equality duty, having a blanket no baby rule regardless of feeding method at eg a council office would be a problem, in a way that it isn't in a private business like this salon.