Employer Should Not Discrimination On Tattoos

Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace. Once an employee is hired, employers do not have the same discretion to impose strict rules regarding visible tattoos and piercings. Employers do have the right to exercise their own discretion when asking their employees to remove piercings or cover up tattoos.

Employer should not discrimination on tattoos. An employer can establish a dress code prohibiting visible tattoos if the company believes they aren't consistent with the organization's branding, image, values or mission, according to guidance. The stigma of having tattoos in the workplace has decreased over the years; with that, the presence of tattoos should not be a deciding factor in the employment process and should be allowed in the workplace. Do not get me wrong, I do understand some tattoos can be seen as inappropriate for particular workplaces. Secondary legislation specifically excluded tattoos and piercings from the 2010 act's definition of a severe disfigurement, on which basis an employer cannot discriminate. However, there are no current laws that prohibit discrimination against people with visible tattoos, body piercings, unnatural hair colors, unique hairstyles, and so on. There have been some grassroots efforts to make body art and body modification protected classes, but those efforts have not been successful.

Employers should ensure there is consistency in the company’s policies. This is to avoid employees bringing discrimination claims. Instead of explicitly prohibiting tattoos, an employer can emphasise the importance of employees having a neat and professional image, and how it benefits the company’s reputation and image. • 76% of respondents felt tattoos and piercings harmed their hiring probability during an interview. • Only 4% reported actually having suffered a known discrimination related to their tattoo in the workplace. • Over 20% percent said they specifically look at an employer’s policies on tattoos in deciding whether to pursue a job offer. Exception Two: Dress and Appearance Codes Must Not Violate Human Rights Statutes. The second general exception to the rule that an employer can discriminate on the basis of appearance is that an employer cannot use appearance as a proxy for a prohibited ground of discrimination in human rights legislation. Employers should also consider that discrimination against tattoos would directly affect ethnic minority groups because they are more likely to have body ink.Reports

It should not matter if one finds tattoos "ugly" or "degrading". Tattoo's are something personal; much like a memoir. These tattoos can be symbolic for a loved one passed, a reminder to one who went through a tragic event, or personal identity. It makes no sense for an employer to degrade something he or she does not understand. Hiring Discrimination? Last year, there were nearly 9100 charges of hiring discrimination brought to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), with claims ranging from discrimination based on age and race to disability and national origin. However, it is not likely that many of these were based on the presence of tattoos or piercings. People with tattoos and piercings should be allowed to freely show their tattoos and piercings in the work-place without discrimination. Every work-place has its own dress code and ethics rules, but there are certain guidelines they have to follow. Freedom of expression is not a protected characteristic under human rights legislation in Canada, says McLellan. “It’s not a human rights violation for there to be an employer policy banning, really, any kind of tattoo,” he says, noting that some exceptions exist for tattoos deemed religious in nature — such as a bindi.

Tattoo discrimination could see companies missing out on young talent, says report. UK workers have no protection under discrimination legislation for having a tattoo Such rule should have been consistently enforced by the employer from the time it was introduced. Specifically with respect to tattoos and piercings, the question becomes whether the rule is "reasonable" and in turn that relates to whether there is a business-related concern – personal views and biases of managers are not relevant. Having said this, there is the possibility for discrimination claims to be raised against employers if the discrimination relates to something like age or religion. A recent YouGov poll suggested a fifth of UK adults have tattoos, with those under 40 significantly more likely to have them. In contrast, less than 5% of over 65s have a tattoo. Example: An employer had a policy to refuse to hire any workers with visible tattoos, even for roles that involved no customer contact. A Maori job applicant who had a tattoo for reasons connected to his ethnic origin was not hired because of his tattoo. This could be racial discrimination.