# Boss Says No Tatoos or Piercings, Is Legal?



## medic417 (Aug 25, 2011)

Well so it's your right to do what you want with your body based on many on here's claims.  But is it?  What if your boss say's no?  Does the threat to your income change how you think?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...t-tattoos-earrings?module=HP11_headline_stack


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 25, 2011)

It's your right to choose what to do with your body, it's the employer's right to choose who to hire. Choices don't come free from consequences, and there is no right to employment. Similarly, it's your right to decide not to work for a company that sets appearance standards that you feel is inappropriate.


----------



## Anjel (Aug 25, 2011)

What JP said. 

My employer doesn't want people with pink hair. 

I still have the choice to dye my hair pink. But if I do, then I would be looking for a new job. 

My employer also allows tattoos as of recently. But If I choose to get a huge gun tattooed on my neck. Then again my choice I can do that if I want to, but I wont be working there.


----------



## JJR512 (Aug 25, 2011)

All of the private companies I've worked for, as well as the county I currently volunteer for, say that hair must be _a_ natural color. Not necessarily the person's _own_ natural hair color, it just has to be a color that does occur in nature. So those with black hair can be blondes, but nobody can have blue or pink hair.

I'm not sure what the policies are on tattoos.


----------



## the_negro_puppy (Aug 25, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> It's your right to choose what to do with your body, it's the employer's right to choose who to hire. Choices don't come free from consequences, and there is no right to employment. Similarly, it's your right to decide not to work for a company that sets appearance standards that you feel is inappropriate.



Its not as simple as this. An employer can't have a policy stating it will not hire any African-American people. Discrimination. It's a matter of whether disallowing the ink and piercings counts as some form of discrimination.


----------



## Hunter (Aug 25, 2011)

the_negro_puppy said:


> Its not as simple as this. An employer can't have a policy stating it will not hire any African-American people. Discrimination. It's a matter of whether disallowing the ink and piercings counts as some form of discrimination.



My company doesn't mind tattoos, at least officially, unofficially they most likely wont hire someone who has tattoos on their face or hands, or other places that can't be covered by a long sleeve, I think it just falls under the realm of professional appearance. Not as much discrimination.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 25, 2011)

the_negro_puppy said:


> Its not as simple as this. An employer can't have a policy stating it will not hire any African-American people. Discrimination. It's a matter of whether disallowing the ink and piercings counts as some form of discrimination.




You would have to establish that the purpose of banning tattoos is solely as a method of discrimination, which I'm going to bet is hard to actually do.


----------



## Anjel (Aug 25, 2011)

You dont choose your ethnicity.

You your tattoos


----------



## Flightorbust (Aug 25, 2011)

I have ink and I can understand the no tattoos under the premise that it looks unprofessional. Now if it can be covered with a long sleeve shirt and you can deal with that style shirt in the summer I dont see an issue. But thats just me. The great thing about bieng a boss tho is that you can set the rule you wish (within reason). I do believe that the rules regarding tattoos will become more lax as the older population dies off. I know elder people that still think of tattoos as something :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored:s, sailors and criminals get.


----------



## Bullets (Aug 25, 2011)

Flightorbust said:


> I have ink and I can understand the no tattoos under the premise that it looks unprofessional. Now if it can be covered with a long sleeve shirt and you can deal with that style shirt in the summer I dont see an issue. But thats just me. The great thing about bieng a boss tho is that you can set the rule you wish (within reason). I do believe that the rules regarding tattoos will become more lax as the older population dies off. I know elder people that still think of tattoos as something :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored:s, sailors and criminals get.



i wouldnt be so sure about the older generation dying off changing things. Im 23 and i feel the same way, and i know im not the only one of my frinds who feels this way


----------



## the_negro_puppy (Aug 25, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> You would have to establish that the purpose of banning tattoos is solely as a method of discrimination, which I'm going to bet is hard to actually do.





Anjel1030 said:


> You dont choose your ethnicity.
> 
> You your tattoos



I'm not saying that not hiring people with tattoos or piercings is the same as not hiring because of race, I was simply refuting the statement that "it's the employer's right to choose who to hire".

To play the devil's advocate, what about Polynesian people who often have tribal tattoos and the like as part of their culture? I agree in general that employers can have such policies on personal appearances, but in changing times this will become more of a grey area as society becomes more multi-cultural.


----------



## Flightorbust (Aug 25, 2011)

I dont think it will compleatly change. Just become more relaxed and accepted. We are already seeing that happen now. There will always be two sides to everything. In this case thoes that hate them and thoes that love em. I do believe that like most thing there will be an explosion of tattoos (what we are seeing now) and then it will mellow down some. But I think overall the stereotypes will become less over time.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Aug 25, 2011)

Bullets said:


> i wouldnt be so sure about the older generation dying off changing things. Im 23 and i feel the same way, and i know im not the only one of my frinds who feels this way



Then your a closed-minded person.

It's a form of self expression. I have a leg sleeve and ink on my back, I'm sitting top of my class in medic school and have been a contributing member to society, work full time alongside school, I'm not an alcoholic and I don't do drugs.

But from what your saying since I have ink I'm some sort of vagrant.

Open your eyes dude, seriously.


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 25, 2011)

medic417 said:


> Well so it's your right to do what you want with your body based on many on here's claims.  But is it?  What if your boss say's no?  Does the threat to your income change how you think?
> 
> http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...t-tattoos-earrings?module=HP11_headline_stack



The owner has the right to do what he so chooses in accordance with the CBA including cutting him however he is still on the hook for the guaranteed portion of his salary.

And just about every player in the NFL has tatoos, so Im sure he isnt going to want to set that precedent.


----------



## bstone (Aug 25, 2011)

We should probably get a lawyer (EMSLaw?) or find legal articles written on this. Some tattoos are for spiritual/religious purposes. As are piercings. I recall a case not too long ago for a girl was kicked out of school for having too many piercings, but her and her mother are members of a legal church that is all about piercings. They filed suit against the school. I'll have to check about whatever happened with it.


----------



## bstone (Aug 25, 2011)

OK, here we go. Yes, body modification for spiritual/religious reasons is a protected act that cannot be subject to regulations:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-Iacono-wins-right-wear-nose-stud-class.html



> The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the school system on her behalf and a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order in October demanding that the school lifted her suspension and allowed her to wear the jewellery.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...right-wear-nose-stud-class.html#ixzz1W5uNlBUm



If it's not done for spiritual/religious reasons then you don't have a valid claim, however.


----------



## medic417 (Aug 25, 2011)

People don't get your panties in a wad.  People have the right to hate tatoos as much as you love them.  The thing thats funny is those that hate them will really enjoy them when those with tats are old and the tats no longer resemble whatever they were when you got them.  I can see the new game at the old folks center guess that tat. :rofl:


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 25, 2011)

the_negro_puppy said:


> To play the devil's advocate, what about Polynesian people who often have tribal tattoos and the like as part of their culture? I agree in general that employers can have such policies on personal appearances, but in changing times this will become more of a grey area as society becomes more multi-cultural.



Multiculturalism isn't a blank check. If someone from one of those African tribes that wears a lip plate would be protected from appearance standards.


----------



## ArcticKat (Aug 25, 2011)

JJR512 said:


> All of the private companies I've worked for, as well as the county I currently volunteer for, say that hair must be _a_ natural color. Not necessarily the person's _own_ natural hair color, it just has to be a color that does occur in nature. So those with black hair can be blondes, but nobody can have blue or pink hair.
> 
> I'm not sure what the policies are on tattoos.




Wonder what they'd do with a 20 year old who dyed his hair Grey. :0


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 25, 2011)

bstone said:


> OK, here we go. Yes, body modification for spiritual/religious reasons is a protected act that cannot be subject to regulations:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...a-Iacono-wins-right-wear-nose-stud-class.html
> 
> ...




It might be protected for government programs, including public schools, but not for private employment.


----------



## AlphaButch (Aug 25, 2011)

Tattoos and piercings are not a protected class by the ADA. However, they may be covered by the EEOC if they are for religious beliefs.

As per, EEOC Directives Transmittal 915.003 and 29 C.F.R. Part 1605.

Religious tattoos and piercings are protected and an employer must accomodate them IF they do not cause more than a de minimis cost, undue hardship or burden on their operations. 

In the matter of dress and grooming codes, U.S. courts have already concluded that causing conflict with the public image the employer wishes to convey to customers falls under the undue hardship. As long as there is no intersection of discrimination regarding any of the protected classes. 

Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004).

However, as per later rulings - this hardship cannot be hypothetical and must be proven. i.e. customer complaints, loss of revenue, etc. 

EEOC v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., 2005 WL 2090677 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2005), Brown v. F.L. Roberts, 419 F. Supp. 2d 7, 17 (D. Mass. 2006), EEOC v. Chriskoll, Inc., d/b/a Brookhaven Burger King, Civil Action No. 06-cv-1197 (E.D. Pa. consent decree filed December 3, 2007)

Most employers know these standards and as a common practice will make a long sleeve shirt available to you. If you choose not to use it, then you can be terminated without them worrying about discrimination as they have provided reasonable accomodation.

In the case of the article involving the nose ring article mentioned, the case was settled out of court. Which in no way establishes any legal ruling.

Disclaimer - I am not offering legal advise, only citing established case law. The EEOC themselves prefer that everything be ruled on a case by case basis.


----------



## bstone (Aug 25, 2011)

> It might be protected for government programs, including public schools, but not for private employment.



As they say on Wikipedia, citation needed. I am pretty sure that no employer may discriminate against someone based upon a sincerely help religious belief.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 25, 2011)

Read the post above yours... 

Besides, prove that I didn't hire someone because of tattoos. When there's an abundance of applicants, the employer can point to any number of other traits on why they hired or didn't hire someone.


----------



## bstone (Aug 25, 2011)

> However, as per later rulings - this hardship cannot be hypothetical and must be proven. i.e. customer complaints, loss of revenue, etc.



That is really interesting. The employer doesn't have a cause to terminate employment because of what MIGHT happen but only if an actual complaint or business problem has actually occurred. Very interesting. I didn't know or realize that.

So yes, tattoos and piercings are protected as long as they cause only minimal disruption and are for religious reasons.


----------



## bstone (Aug 25, 2011)

> Besides, prove that I didn't hire someone because of tattoos. When there's an abundance of applicants, the employer can point to any number of other traits on why they hired or didn't hire someone.



So are you conceding the point that private employers may not arbitrarily fire an employee for becoming tattooed or pierced as per sincerely held religious beliefs and as long as there is minimal disruption and no complaints?


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 25, 2011)

I'm also going to out on a limb and bet that it's the applicant's duty to show that the tattoo is religious. Some sort of random Chinese character, tear drop, or elbow spiderweb? Not so much.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 25, 2011)

bstone said:


> So are you conceding the point that private employers may not arbitrarily fire an employee for becoming tattooed or pierced as per sincerely held religious beliefs and as long as there is minimal disruption and no complaints?




I'm gong to emphasis minimal disruption and no complaints. 1 complaint? Termination. 

I'm also going to point out that it's often a moot point because there are plenty of other reasons that can be articulated. There's no such thing as "all other things being equal, besides..." in real life. 

So technically? Yes. Realistically? No.


----------



## bstone (Aug 25, 2011)

We're not talking about other reasons. We're talking about tattoos and piercings for religious purposes in the private work place. Do you concede the point? Earlier you said that an employer can do what they want. Have you changed your mind?


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 25, 2011)

...and again, I'm saying that even if the one reason that I didn't hire someone was specifically tattoos, I challenge you to prove it. So, yes, since it's going to be near impossible for you to prove, in the current job market (which for EMS has been over-saturated for a long time), the employer can easily choose to not hire someone because of tattoos with impunity.


----------



## bstone (Aug 25, 2011)

Sigh. Avoiding the question again. I know when to stop beating a dead horse.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 25, 2011)

No, you fail to understand how the real world works.


----------



## Lady_EMT (Aug 25, 2011)

First off, I want to say that the following post is coming from someone who has multiple tattoos, has had piercings, and worked in a tattoo shop. 

Companies can hire whoever they want. Many times, if you do have a tattoo that is visible, as long as it's nothing profane or ridiculous, they will look past it. But it does look unprofessional when you go running around with green hair, a lip ring, and naked pin up girls up and down both arms. 

I've been wanting to get a 9/11 tribute tattoo on my upper lower arm, but I won't, only because I take into account that many people won't hire someone with apparent tattoos. Do I agree with it? It's situation dependent. Policies are policies. Don't like it? Don't apply. 




---
- This post brought to you by Tapatalk


----------



## AlphaButch (Aug 25, 2011)

JP, yes - the employer can require that the employee show proof that the religion is sincerely held. The employer must also be made aware that the tattoo or piercing is due to religious beliefs and given the opportunity to allow reasonable accomodation (reasonable for them, not necessarily for the employee, read on).

Also, if you're in an "at will" state, it would also fall on the employee to show that the reason for the termination was discriminatory. If there was a reason at all. "Hey guys, why'd you fire Joe Tattoo?""Felt crowded in here".

I like tattoos and have a couple (one is religious), as do many of my coworkers. However, they are not visible while we're in uniform. I'm now an employer and I can tell you that if you have visible tattoos, I'll just provide you something to cover it. If it can't be covered, I have the option of not hiring because you don't fit the "image" of my company (which leaves me more open to litigation, but it's still an option). Of course, I may have a myriad of other reasons to choose someone else (experience, attitude, knowledge). You will then have to prove;

a. that the tattoo is religious
b. that I knew it was religious (because I'm not allowed to ask during the interview)
and c. that it was the reason not to be hired/fired - which, a trained HR person would know that A+B had better not = C.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 25, 2011)

AlphaButch said:


> c. that it was the reason not to be hired/fired - which, a trained HR person would know that A+B had better not = C.



"Applicant John Doe failed the interview."


----------



## Handsome Rob (Aug 26, 2011)

I love this site. Tattoos are the devil!

sent from my mobile command center. or phone. whatever.


----------



## Bullets (Aug 26, 2011)

Handsome Rob said:


> I love this site. Tattoos are the devil!
> 
> sent from my mobile command center. or phone. whatever.



i just love how worked up the pro-tattoo crowd gets when we have these discussions

In the areas i work, we have large urban populations, and we have large gang problems of all races and groups. Blod, Crips, MS13, Warlocks, Latin Kings and some local posers. Each and every one of them hate everyone else. There are 2 places that are neutral territory. The amusement park, and tatoo shops. Its the only thing they have in common. 

So people around here are cautious when they see people with "ink" Even if you arent in a gang, the assumption is that you are. People see your tatoos first and form an image of what kind of person you are. Is it fair? No, but perception is reality. Show me your tatoos, and ill tell you what gang your in. so naturally employers are cautious about hiring people with visible tatoos because of the public perception


----------



## dstevens58 (Aug 26, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Multiculturalism isn't a blank check. If someone from one of those African tribes that wears a lip plate would be protected from appearance standards.



Think that would get in the way of effective CPR?  Or maybe scare them back into sinus rhythm?  :rofl:



JPINFV said:


> Read the post above yours...
> 
> Besides, prove that I didn't hire someone because of tattoos. When there's an abundance of applicants, the employer can point to any number of other traits on why they hired or didn't hire someone.



+2  There are many ways to get around hiring someone.  A previous employer is not allowed to negatively impact/harm a prospective employee from getting a new job, but there are certain phrases to questions/responses that lets the new (prospective) employer know that a candidate would not be a good fit.



Bullets said:


> i just love how worked up the pro-tattoo crowd gets when we have these discussions
> 
> ..... because of the public perception



Public perception shall change, but my sagging/aging skin will never hold a tattoo, despite my kids saying I should get one.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Aug 26, 2011)

> Think that would get in the way of effective CPR?



Who in the hell still gives mouth to mouth?


----------



## BandageBrigade (Aug 26, 2011)

dstevens58 said:


> There are many ways to get around hiring someone.  A previous employer is not allowed to negatively impact/harm a prospective employee from getting a new job, but there are certain phrases to questions/responses that lets the new (prospective) employer know that a candidate would not be a good fit.



Except that if you request it, a former employer can give nothing more than your dates of  employment, and can say nothing good or bad, about performance. They can however, say if you are eligible for rehire.


----------



## mcdonl (Aug 26, 2011)

*It's all about decisions...*

If you decided to get a cool flag with infinite justice, and 09/11/01 on it (Yeah, I moved fast and did it before the DOD realized "infinite" would upset the muslim community) on my bicep then I can live with, and explain that decision. Also... no one would know as it is covered with a T-Shirt...

If you make the decision to have thug life on your knuckles, or a gun on your neck people will always question your decision making abilities. And, well.. you ability to make good decisions is sort of important in EMS.


----------



## alias (Aug 26, 2011)

I love it when women in general find tattoos distasteful yet they wear makeup every single day


----------



## medic417 (Aug 26, 2011)

alias said:


> I love it when women in general find tattoos distasteful yet they wear makeup every single day



Way different and not relevant to this discussion.


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 26, 2011)

medic417 said:


> Way different and not relevant to this discussion.



Actually I don't see any difference, one is accepted  form of decor the other isn't.

Im sure makeup had it's critics as well when first introduced.


----------



## Sasha (Aug 26, 2011)

Make up can be washed off and if done right looks natural... tattoos dont.

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk


----------



## Shishkabob (Aug 26, 2011)

Sasha said:


> Make up can be washed off and if done right looks natural... tattoos dont.
> 
> Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk



Tatted on eyeliner / eyebrows / lip liner


----------



## Flightorbust (Aug 26, 2011)

Linuss said:


> Tatted on eyeliner / eyebrows / lip liner



beat me to it


----------



## Sasha (Aug 26, 2011)

Looks trashy but is not the same thing as having full skully sleeve.

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk


----------



## Sasha (Aug 26, 2011)

Linuss said:


> Tatted on eyeliner / eyebrows / lip liner



And isnt make up

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 26, 2011)

Sasha said:


> Make up can be washed off and if done right looks natural... tattoos dont.
> 
> Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk



Looks natural to who?  You?

I see no difference, besides one is accepted one isn't.

If you would like to disqualify a whole group of employers for having tattoos, it's your right.

I don't base decisions on appearance, nor do I form opinions because I don't have the ability to see beneath the surface.

And I don't even have a tattoo.


----------



## Sandog (Aug 26, 2011)

How may I help you today...


----------



## sweetpete (Aug 26, 2011)

We have a good number of guys on our FD that have tattoos. City policy states that ALL tattoos, regardless of meaning, must be covered by some sort of clothing.

It's about "professionalism". Both "actual" and "perceived". The court of public opinion has made it's ruling and tattoos are TYPICALLY considered unprofessional.

Personally, I don't have a problem with them, but I don't write policy.


----------



## dstevens58 (Aug 26, 2011)

BandageBrigade said:


> Except that if you request it, a former employer can give nothing more than your dates of  employment, and can say nothing good or bad, about performance. They can however, say if you are eligible for rehire.



That's what I was trying to say, but got caught up in the verbosity of it all.....I guess you can tell I used to work for the government. :rofl:


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 26, 2011)

BandageBrigade said:


> Except that if you request it, a former employer can give nothing more than your dates of  employment, and can say nothing good or bad, about performance. They can however, say if you are eligible for rehire.




[source required]

Sorry, I get the feeling that it being a flat ban is an urban legend, just that companies generally don't say anything good or bad out of fear (real or perceived) of liability for misleading the prospective employer.


----------



## JJR512 (Aug 27, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> [source required]
> 
> Sorry, I get the feeling that it being a flat ban is an urban legend, just that companies generally don't say anything good or bad out of fear (real or perceived) of liability for misleading the prospective employer.


 
I think you meant *requested* and not *required* unless you're making up rules.

That being said, to my knowledge you are correct. To my knowledge, and as a former manager, there is no legal ban, it's just what many companies choose to do for liability reasons. Liability potentially to not just the prospective employer, but to the former employee as well, if that person is unable to find work thanks in some part to negative comments made.


----------



## AlphaButch (Aug 27, 2011)

BandageBrigade said:


> Except that if you request it, a former employer can give nothing more than your dates of  employment, and can say nothing good or bad, about performance. They can however, say if you are eligible for rehire.



Rumor

There is no federal law prohibiting or limiting an employers disclosure on a former employee. A few companies do limit what they say to curb liability risks, as this was "common business practice" for many years. Of course, they may be limited by ADA regs, HIPAA regs, etc. 

Recent litigation has actually started to change this practice as some employers have been taken to court for misrepresenting or witholding information regarding a prior employee (called a negligent referral).

Further, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have protection for employers discosures similiar to TX (below) in their statutes;

In Texas; 

_An employer may, but is not required to, disclose to a prospective employer on the request of the employee, job performance information including the manner in which an employee performed a position of employment and an analysis of the employee’s attendance, attitudes, effort, knowledge, behaviors and skills. An employer is immune from civil liability for such disclosures unless the employer knew the information to be false or the employer disclosed the information in a reckless disregard for the truth._ (TX§103.001-005) 

If someone chooses to deny their prospective employer from contacting their prior employers - how far do you think they'd make in a hiring process?


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 27, 2011)

JJR512 said:


> I think you meant *requested* and not *required* unless you're making up rules.
> 
> That being said, to my knowledge you are correct. To my knowledge, and as a former manager, there is no legal ban, it's just what many companies choose to do for liability reasons. Liability potentially to not just the prospective employer, but to the former employee as well, if that person is unable to find work thanks in some part to negative comments made.



Request, required, ultimately to-ma-to, to-mah-to as I don't think there's anything limiting what a company can say provided what is said truthful, accurate, and doesn't violate very specific, very narrow other privacy rights (e.g. EEOC claims, health records, etc).


----------



## Sasha (Aug 27, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> Looks natural to who?  You?
> 
> I see no difference, besides one is accepted one isn't.
> 
> ...



Really? You dont see a difference between easily removeable make up and permanent tattoos?

Make up is widely accepted on females. Tattoos used to have a very negative connotation. Make up didnt.

And yes, the key to make up is to make it look natural, of course sometimes people ignore that and go all trashy, and around here they would be asked to remove it.

I am not judging anyone, one of my best partners had full sleeves, but i am not going to disagree that tattoos can cause some anxiety to the elderly and lend towards a less than professional appearance.

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk


----------

