Is Discrimination Against Tattooed People Legal?

Tattoos have become increasingly popular in recent years, with more and more individuals choosing to express themselves through this unique form of art. Despite their growing acceptance, tattooed individuals can still face discrimination in various aspects of life, such as employment. But is this discrimination legal, and how are the laws formulated to address such an issue?

Understanding Discrimination Laws

Discrimination laws primarily aim to protect against unfair treatment based on certain protected statuses. These statuses include characteristics such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, as these attributes are considered inherent and less subject to change.

However, being tattooed is different. It is a choice that individuals make for themselves, unlike skin color or sexual orientation. According to employment discrimination laws, tattoos that are exposed through clothing (visible tattoos) do not typically fall under the category of legally protected statuses. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) generally takes the stance that visible tattoos do not trigger anti-discrimination laws.

Employment Law and Visible Tattoos

Employers are primarily required to adhere to laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These laws protect individuals against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and disability. As tattoos are not protected under these categories, visible tattoos may not be legally grounds for discrimination in employment unless they were acquired due to a disability.

It is important to note that the legal landscape can vary by jurisdiction. Some states may have additional protections, but generally, tattoos alone are not enough to constitute discrimination. Employers can set reasonable dress codes and grooming policies that apply equally to all employees.

For example, if an employer enforces a "business professional" dress code that forbids visible tattoos, they must be prepared to substantiate that this policy is job-related and consistent with business necessity. If the tattoo poses a direct threat to health, safety, corporate image, or is otherwise connected to a specific job function (e.g., security or law enforcement), then the employer's policy can be legally upheld.

Common Misinterpretations and Challenges

One common misconception is that because tattoos are not inherently protected under discrimination laws, employers can discriminate against employees with tattoos. However, this does not mean that such discrimination is legally acceptable. Employers must ensure they are not making decisions based on prejudice or stereotyping. For instance, it would be illegal to refuse to hire a candidate solely because they have a tattoo, as this could be considered a violation of anti-discrimination laws even if tattoos are not a protected category.

Furthermore, tattoos can sometimes be misinterpreted as a sign of poor work ethic, immaturity, or even criminal behavior. Research has shown that tattoos are often associated with these negative stereotypes, even though these associations are not necessarily accurate. It is crucial for employers to focus on an individual's qualifications and job performance, rather than on superficial characteristics like tattoos.

Case Studies and Judicial Decisions

Several court cases have further clarified the status of tattoos in legal terms. One notable case is Bowman v. Bohls Construction Corp. (2007), where a California appellate court found that a construction company could legally fire an employee based on visible tattoos, as they were pertinent to the job's responsibilities. Similarly, Strate v. Redinger (2002) dealt with a bank employee who had a tattoo that was visible on a duty uniform. The court ruled that the employer was within its rights to reject the employee's application on the grounds that the tattoo violated a uniform policy.

These cases illustrate that employers have a certain degree of flexibility in setting policies regarding visible tattoos. However, they must ensure that any such policies do not disproportionately affect certain groups and are transparent in their application.

Conclusion and Future Outlook

While tattoos are not currently considered a protected status under discrimination laws, this does not mean that tattooed individuals are immune to discrimination in various spheres of life. As society continues to evolve and become more accepting of diverse forms of self-expression, it is essential for lawmakers, employers, and the general public to recognize the nuances of discrimination and its potential to manifest in unexpected ways.

As we move forward, it's crucial to strike a balance between respecting personal choices and ensuring a fair and equitable work environment. Employers should review their policies to ensure they do not inadvertently discriminate based on superficial characteristics. At the same time, individuals with tattoos should advocate for themselves and seek legal recourse if they encounter unfair treatment.

Ultimately, fostering a more inclusive society requires ongoing dialogue, education, and a commitment to fairness. By understanding the complexities of discrimination and its legal implications, we can work towards a future where everyone, regardless of their choices, is treated with dignity and respect.