Labor & Employment
As Tattoos Enter Mainstream, Courts Uphold Employers’ Right to Ban Them
Posted Sep 25, 2008 7:13 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Tattoos and body piercing are gaining increasing acceptance, but employers have a right to ban their workers from sporting them.
In case after case, courts have found no legal right to such self-expression, the New York Times reports. The decisions come despite the new popularity of body art such as neck tattoos and facial piercing. “Suddenly it is not just retro punks and hard-core rappers who look as if they’ve tossed over any intention of ever working a straight job,” the story says.
Courts in Massachusetts and Washington are among those siding with employers, the story says. In one Massachusetts case, a court rejected the arguments of a Costco cashier who said her 11 earrings and eyebrow piercings were a form of religious expression. The woman had said she was a member of the Church of Body Modifications.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
Ellen Barshevsky
Sep 25, 2008 5:31 PM CST
I once met a man in college who wanted to date me, but he had a tatoo, so I would not date him.
I do not like tatoos, but I do not believe an employer can discriminate against someone because of their tatoo.
How would it work if someone who WAS already working got a tatoo? Could they be FIRED for getting one?
I think that would be VERY UNFAIR, since people often get tatoos when they are dared to do it, usually at an arcade after they have drinken a number of drinks.
Although I think it is trashy, it is NOT a fire-able offense. Therefore, I vote AGAINST employers on this issue.
Flag this comment
df
Sep 26, 2008 9:00 AM CST
I’m not a fan of many employers’ hiring and firing practices, but don’t have a problem with most piercing/tattoo policies (at least in respect of employees dealing with the “public”).
Piercings can be removed. Tattoos obviously are more permanent in most cases, but if an employer thinks e.g. customers will be offended or disturbed, they may be right. To take an extreme example, if someone had a “KKK” or swastika tattoo on their forehead, many customers would be offended. Some people consider there to be religious prohibitions against tattoos and are therefore offended by them. One is free to be tattooed or pierced in areas not ordinarily visible if it’s important, but an employer is also free not to hire you.
So long as it’s not a legally prohibited ground for firing, go ahead and fire someone for any reason or none if desired. If a state actually wants to protect against tattoo/piercing “discrimination” it’s free to pass laws regarding such, but until then, tough.
Flag this comment
Jon Klein
Sep 26, 2008 9:04 AM CST
The penalties incurred by people who do reckless things while drunk often seem unfair to them when they sober up. Poor tattoo placement reflects poor decision making. Having a visible tattoo contrary to company policy is the same as if an employee violated the company dress code every day of employment. If your law firm wouldn’t tolerate an associate wearing shorts to work every day, why should a company tolerate an employee with a visible tattoo every day?
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.