Seven years ago I worked for a specialty apparel brand that was owned by a much larger company. The company, of course, provided every employee an Employee Handbook and Code of Conduct, that included, among other things, dress and appearance guidelines. Retail companies cannot require an associate to buy the clothing sold at their stores, but can require that an associate dress in items that look brand appropriate. The rules clearly stated that tattoos needed to be covered while on the sales floor (as well as facial piercings being removed). My store manager did not enforce this rule because she asserted that we lived and worked in a community very accepting of tattoos (Santa Cruz, CA) and thought our customers would not be offended if tattoos were visible on associates. When I was transferred to a larger store in a more metropolitan area, the tattoo rule was, again, not enforced. To my knowledge there was never a customer complaint regarding the visibility of tattoos on associates.
Fast forward to the present time. I work for the same company, but within another brand. The same Employee Handbook, with the same dress and appearance guidelines are provided to all associates. This brand takes the tattoo policy seriously, and I have several peers that take time and effort to wear clothes and accessories specifically to cover tattoos (i.e. a store manager at another store has a tattoo on her wrist that she covers with a large bangle bracelet). Again, to my knowledge, there has never been a customer complaint regarding tattoos. Which leads me to wonder, why include the policy at all? Tattoos do seem to be less taboo than they were twenty years ago; many more people have tattoos, and many individuals use body art as a form of expression. Is a policy regarding appearance worth giving up on talented individuals during the selection process simply because of a tattoo? Would this practice even be legal? Moreover, can certain tattoos be acceptable and some be unacceptable?
According to Swartzentruber v. Gunite Corp, a company can ask individuals to cover tattoos, particularly when they are offensive to other employees. Mr. Swarzentruber asserted that his tattoo was religious in nature (which is protected under Title VII) and that as a result of his tattoo, he was being harassed (his tattoo was a Ku Klux Klan symbol). He claimed his work environment was hostile. The court "agreed with Gunite that any greater accommodation would cause it an undue hardship. Gunite demanded that Mr. Swartzentruber cover his tattoo because it violated Gunite's racial harassment policy and offended other employees. Gunite accommodated his tattoo depiction of his religious belief that many would view as a racist and violent symbol by allowing him to work with the tattoo covered; Title VII doesn't require more."
What do you think: should tattoos be protected under anti-discrimination laws? Is the right person worth overlooking tattoos, or should there be strict adherence of appearance policies?
I think the difficulty comes when comparing two employees. Employee A has a tattoo, but he is conscious of how the display of his tattoo could affect customers. Employee A decides to cover it, so that no one is affended. Employee B has a tattoo as well, but he doesn't care who sees his tattoo. It's his right to free expression. Unfortunatley, Employee B's tattoo could be considered offensive in nature due the wording on the tattoo. How could the company ask Employee B to cover his tattoo if they don't ask Employee A to cover it as well? It seems that these days companies have to err on the side of caution to protect themselves. Unfortunate that the actions of few can affect many.
ReplyDelete