Tattoos and Piercings? Not in My Office!

As Millennials continue to enter the workforce, companies will be challenged to consider whether appearance is so important that it overtakes the company’s desire to hire based on a person’s qualifications. Is it OK to disqualify a candidate because of their visible tattoos or piercings?

As Millennials continue to enter the workforce, companies will be challenged to consider whether appearance is so important that it overtakes the company’s desire to hire based on a person’s qualifications. Is it OK to disqualify a candidate because of their visible tattoos or piercings?

Last week we talked about the personal appearance policy and how it affects what employees should wear to work. The personal appearance policy can also address tattoos and body piercings. Tattoos were once stereotyped as adorned only by bikers, convicts, or drunken sailors. More recently they are seen as works of art and are a way for many to express themselves.

According to a 2010 survey done by Pew Research Center, the Millennials (who are approximately 18 to 30 years of age) are noted to be the most heavily tattooed generation, with Gen-Xers running a close second. Millennials were also reported as leading in body piercings in places other than the lobe. Even so, not all generations are so accepting and many people feel threatened by the mere presence of someone displaying a tattoo or body piercing.

So, is it OK for companies to discriminate against people with visible tattoos and piercings? While employers are prohibited from discriminating based on many things like age, race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin, there are currently no laws that prohibit the discrimination of something within a person’s control, such as visible tattoos or body piercings.

If your company has a certain image they are trying to uphold and your personal appearance policy is not discriminatory, you are within your rights to disqualify a candidate because of visible tattoos or body piercings. Yes, this may sound unfair, but it certainly does happen. Some companies are looking for a more traditional, professional or conservative look for their employees who interact with customers. And some other companies are actually looking for the more eccentric look and seek out employees with body piercings and tattoos to fit their more urban company image.

Like any policy, a personal appearance policy will only surve its purpose if you make it known to your staff and make the consequences of not following the policy known, as well.  In a case involving the EEOC, A Red Robin employee was terminated after having worked six months as a server with no complaints from any customers, managers, or other employees.  Even though company policy required tattoos to be covered, for six months the employee did not cover his religious wrist tattoo.  When a new manager saw this, he fired the employee.  The end result, the EEOC found in favor of the employee because the policy had not been enforced from the date the employee was hired. 

The bottom line is, companies need to determine if they can look beyond the tattoos and piercings and see the candidate’s true knowledge, skills and abilities to perform the requirements of the job.  If not, make sure you have a solid personal appearance policy in place and you require everyone to follow it.

For more information on the Pew Research Center report, see 

http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change.pdf.

For more information on the EEOC vs. Red Robin case, see 

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-16-05.cfm.

About the Author:

Darlene Fenn is a Southern California HR consultant with over 20 years of experience in HR and the prevention methods a business needs to minimize risk and maximize their human ROI. You can find out more information on Darlene at www.cohrconsulting.com.