Results tagged “dress code”
Ok, even I, with all my tattoo law nerdiness, am getting tired of all the "tattoo discrimination" news articles, but I wanted to briefly highlight yet another recent case of dress code policies and discrimination. On August 1st, New Orleans police must cover all visible tattoos or face discipline -- or even termination.
Cops covering up is nothing new. I wrote about police officer tattoo policies in Arizona, and also dress codes for certain Canadian police departments. Now, private employers may have a general right to institute dress code policies and make appearance-based hiring decisions, as long as the discrimination is not based on a protected class. However, public employees have a greater deal of protection when it comes to discrimination in hiring and dress policies, and in the case of cops, the practicalities of the job should trump outdated ideas of who gets tattooed.
Raymond Burkart III, attorney and spokesman for the NOLA Fraternal Order of Police, said it best: "As we reach temperatures close to 100 degrees on some days, [the new policy] just seems like cruel and unusual punishment, just because you are proud that you served in the U.S. Navy or you put the name of your child on your arm." He added: "Does the person calling 911 in an emergency situation really care whether a police officer's tattoo is visible? They just want a police response and a timely one. Does it matter that an officer who catches an armed robber has a tattoo? You took a dangerous criminal off the street. We have to ask ourselves: Are we prioritizing our reforms?"
The argument of the New Orleans Police Department is that they wish to give a more "professional appearance to law enforcement officers." I may have agreed with this ten years ago, when I first started writing about tattoo discrimination; however, as I mentioned, my views are changing -- and it's because society is changing.
The latest tattoo statistics in the US are the following: one in five U.S. adults has at least one tattoo; 38% of adults aged 30-39 are most likely to have a tattoo; and women are slightly more likely than men to have a tattoo.
So, considering just how many tattooed Americans exist today -- and now add the non-tattooed people who love us -- what is the current reality that people will negatively react to the tattooed cops, lawyers, teachers, and baristas they are coming across at this very moment? I'll tell ya: waaaay less than they did ten years ago.
Over the weekend, the Army Times reported on potential new grooming regulations that govern tattoos as well as other appearance standards. And if soldiers don't comply, they could face some serious trouble.
According to the article, here are the new tattoo and piercing rules proposed:
Tattoos will not be visible above the neck line when the physical fitness uniform is worn. Tattoos will not extend below the wrist line and not be visible on the hands. Sleeve tattoos will be prohibited. (This rule may be grandfathered.)The regulations still have to be "tweaked" to make sure they are "feasible, affordable and reasonable." And legal. One of the big problems I have, in relation to these standards, is forced tattoo removal -- which was actually mentioned as a possibility by a Sergeant Major and other senior leaders. While I don't know anything about military law, it's not improbable that a removal requirement could face a legal challenge.
The removal discussion follows a note on "inappropriate tattoos," but it seems that, for those with existing tattoos not deemed inappropriate, the work could be "grandfathered" in and soldiers wouldn't be penalized.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Read more about the rules in the Army Times.