# Anti-tattoo discrimination; should this be a thing? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 18, 2014, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821 "2014-08-18T12:56:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/81 "2014-08-21T17:01:43Z")
> [@Pabitel](#): > > But what percentage of those with MBAs, law degrees or banking jobs have them? About 25% of my graduating class at law school had tattoos that I know. I would guess another 10% had tattoos I don’t know about. I just asked a colleague who went to a conservative Christian law school in Minnesota and he guessed 10% of his class had visible tattoos. Granted, we’re younger than most lawyers (I’m 32, he’s 27) but that would seem to put new attorneys more or less in line with the national average (making all allowances from the fact that this was an entirely unscientific poll). ---
**Author:** ![Spiderman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiderman/32/230_2.png) [@Spiderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiderman)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/82 "2014-08-21T18:01:26Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > About 25% of my graduating class at law school had tattoos that I know. I would guess another 10% had tattoos I don’t know about. > > I just asked a colleague who went to a conservative Christian law school in Minnesota and he guessed 10% of his class had visible tattoos. Define visible. Visible when you were hanging out with them in casual t-shirts or when they were wearing professional attire? ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/83 "2014-08-21T18:08:13Z")
Personally, I wouldn’t be shocked if the popularity of tatoos is waning; in fact, that’d be more or less what I’d expect. Consider that part of the reason it exploded in popularity was as a way of the younger generation rebelling against the older generation. These days, it’s not uncommon to see people of all ages with tatoos, so anyone motivated to rebel for that reason will no longer have that reason. That said, it seems to me that tatoos are more or less generally accepted by society to a certain degree. Sure, if you are thoroughly inked, or have something showing poor judgment in a visible place, it’s still going to be looked down on, but I don’t often see people who have a ton of ink that aren’t some sort of artistic type or the like. Personally speaking, I have a great deal of respect for tatoos as a real form of art, particularly interesting because it’s a collaboration between the artist and the canvas. Just like with other forms of art, if someone has flash or whatever the current fad in tatoos might be, I’ll feel the same as if someone talks to me about pop music rather than a genre or artist I have a great deal more interest in. I seriously doubt I’ll ever get any tatoo work done myself, though I’ve toyed with a few ideas. But particularly tatoos that are significant, don’t have any potentially offensive imagery, and especially if they’re either easily concealed or in an out of the way place, like the ankle, I just don’t see much reason for people to complain. And, of course, in all of that, I just don’t get the idea that having ink should make one a protected class. I think to some extent, some tatoos allude to other classes that might have grounds for protection, like aforementioned cultural tatoos, particularly Pacific ones, or perhaps things like military tatoos. Regardless, to me, a protected class should be something that is essentially immutable and not a choice. One can’t just choose to be a different race, gender, orientation, etc. Particularly in the case of the story in the OP, it was clearly a decision, and it’s not like she can claim it’s something culturally significant. I don’t think it’s a big deal at all and it’s silly to fire someone over it, but I still think it should be within the rights of her employer to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Lowdown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Lowdown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lowdown)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/84 "2014-08-21T18:09:36Z")
No, it shouldn’t be illegal to fire her. She made a choice with potential consequences. I’m totally fine with discrimination against any and all body modification. I’m also totally fine with any and all body modification. You do whatever you want, it’s your body. Just don’t expect everyone to be willing to accommodate your special snowflakeness. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/85 "2014-08-21T18:36:25Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > These days, it’s not uncommon to see people of all ages with tatoos, so anyone motivated to rebel for that reason will no longer have that reason. I’ve had work done during my 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. My early work was all done in areas that could be covered by clothing out of concern for employment. Now I am self employed, so I pretty much do what I want. I’ve likely lost some customers due to my ink, but those are people I’d rather not spend time with, so win-win. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/86 "2014-08-21T19:27:57Z")
> [@Spiderman](#): > > Define visible. Visible when you were hanging out with them in casual t-shirts or when they were wearing professional attire? Casual attire. ---
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2014, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/87 "2014-08-21T21:54:20Z")
The person I know with the most extensive ink is a lawyer. He wears long sleeves to work. And pants–can’t go to work for the fed without pants. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/88 "2014-08-22T01:31:32Z")
> [@susan](#): > > And pants–can’t go to work for the fed without pants. Damn Federalis. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/89 "2014-08-22T02:25:41Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > since people have gradually figured out that tattoos don’t mean you’re a criminal or a gang member, it’s hard to think of a good reason for anyone to give a shit unless you have something like a Nazi symbol on your face. While tattoos obviously don’t necessarily mean that you’re a criminal or a gang member, according to [this article](http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21610334-body-art-growing-more-popular-though-few-employers-are-keen-ink-blots), studies still show that there may be a correlation between having a tattoo and deviant behavior. > [@](#): > > Such prejudice may seem anachronistic, but it is not unfounded. Empirical studies have long linked tattoos with deviant behaviour. People with inked skin are more likely to carry weapons, use illegal drugs and get arrested. The association is stronger for bigger tattoos, or when there are several, says Jerome Koch, a sociologist at Texas Tech University. While it may not apply in the case of the woman described in the OP, the link between having tattoos and deviant behavior might be a good reason that some employers might want to discriminate on the basis of someone having a tattoo. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/90 "2014-08-22T03:03:44Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > It isn’t that hard. I can wear dress pants to work, I cannot wear hot pants. I can dye my hair copper red, I cannot dye my hair neon green. These judgement calls happen every single day. Not everything is that easy. Suppose you have a heart with ASS on it, and get told to cover it, or it’s unacceptable. You say that So-&-So doesn’t have to cover HIS heart tattoo with BEC on it. BEC are his girlfriend’s initials. You offer to bring in proof that your girlfriend’s name in Alison Alexa Smith, but you boss isn’t interested. It has to be covered. You feel discriminated against, because your girlfriend’s parents were a little thoughtless when naming her. It’s better just to say “Everyone covers.” ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/91 "2014-08-22T04:49:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Upholding a blanket policy against visible tattoos so you don’t have to argue over whether any given tattoo is “inoffensive” would likely pass the test. It’s a pretty pointless argument to have - but in my experience and judgement, probably not. (at least in New Zealand) From the relevant NZ law > [@](#): > > Termination of employment[edit] > Employees can only be fired if the employer has a good reason and has followed a fair procedure. > > Good reasons for firing employees include : > > Unsatisfactory performance > Incompatibility with other employees > Absenteeism > Negligence > Misrepresentation in a curriculum vitae (exaggeration in a CV may not be sufficient)[27] > Incompetence (where a person says they have a skill but in fact don’t)[28] > Misconduct > Inability to perform the work due to injury or illness > Theft (of even low value items e.g. six jars of jam) [29] > Sleeping on the job [30] > Violence (even against a co-worker’s car [31] or a cow [32]) If you wanted to fire someone for a tattoo - you’d have to be able to justify it to the “reasonable person” standard on the above grounds. Naturally - if you just didn’t hire them and kept quiet about it - that’s a different matter. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/92 "2014-08-22T09:20:05Z")
In the US, you can be expected to comply with a dress code, and that dress code can include “No visible tattoos,” “no jewelry,” or even “no earrings on men”; it can include short hair on men, can require women with long hair to put it up, and no facial hair on men-- even without a religious exemption, albeit, if there is no health dept. reason a man might successfully challenge it, and if the rule is new, men hired before it may get a grandfather clause if they wear facial hair for religious reasons. Some dress codes can even require dresses or skirts for women, but they will need a good reason to stand up to a court challenge. There are a lot of safety things you can be required to comply with as well, like “no open-toed shoes.” A company will need to inform an employee either during an interview, or at the time of making a job offer. Failure to comply is “insubordination,” and that’s a reason for termination, even in states that are not at-will. That would probably fall under “unsatisfactory performance” on the NZ list. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/93 "2014-08-22T09:28:32Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > In the US, you can be expected to comply with a dress code, and that dress code can include “No visible tattoos,” “no jewelry,” or even “no earrings on men”; it can include short hair on men, can require women with long hair to put it up, and no facial hair on men-- even without a religious exemption, albeit, if there is no health dept. reason a man might successfully challenge it, and if the rule is new, men hired before it may get a grandfather clause if they wear facial hair for religious reasons. Some dress codes can even require dresses or skirts for women, but they will need a good reason to stand up to a court challenge. > > There are a lot of safety things you can be required to comply with as well, like “no open-toed shoes.” > > A company will need to inform an employee either during an interview, or at the time of making a job offer. Failure to comply is “insubordination,” and that’s a reason for termination, even in states that are not at-will. That would probably fall under “unsatisfactory performance” on the NZ list. Unlikely - the rules also cannot be arbitrary, uneccessarily harsh, punitive etc. Safety standards - strictly enforced yes, and reason for termination. If you want to enforce a dress code (beyond neat, tidy, professional, fit for the job etc) you also have to be able to justify why it is needed, how it contributes to job performance, and how it is relevant. So, while you may well get away with something like “no facial hair” in a public facing job, you are unlikely to be able to enforce it for a stock man or cleaner - it simply is not relevant to job performance. Without reading deep into the act, and going into technicalities, the overarching principal of the way the law is structured - “is this relevant to job performance” - a small tattoo is unlikely to be thought relevant unless it is highly offensive or the company can make a case as to why it harms their business. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/94 "2014-08-22T09:30:33Z")
A question for our UK lawyers: does the concept of “protected class” exist under the legal system of England and Wales? The articles provided do not give enough information. Was the ban on visible tattoos in place when she got that one/got hired, or was it put in place after she got it? If the first, she’s completely at fault; now, whether that is a fireable offense or not, would have to be listed in the policy (several repeats of a minor fault do consist a fireable offense in the Spanish legal system, again I don’t know about UK labor law). If the second, she’s got the right to grumble but it still would have been in her interest to buy some 40DIN pantyhose. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/95 "2014-08-22T09:31:49Z")
To one degree, I think tatoo discrimination is perfectly fine if you’re someone who deals with people – consultants, spokesmodels, PR reps, that sort of thing. Hot Topic is free to decide that they want their models to be tatted and pierced up and Abercrombie and Fitch is free to use pure-as-snow trust fund kids. Movies are allowed to not hire me when they need a black chick for a role, and so on. It depends who the company wants to target and the image they want to project. Where I think it’s less defensible is people like programmers, accountants, etc. I see no real reason to deny people with tattoos or body mods from those positions. I’m not quite at the point that I think it should be literally illegal to deny these people those positions based on having a tattoo, but I think that’s being a bit too judgmental. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/96 "2014-08-22T09:41:52Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > A question for our UK lawyers: does the concept of “protected class” exist under the legal system of England and Wales? IANAL, but the concept certainly [does](https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination) exist, classes include all the obvious ones like race, sex, religion (or lack thereof, an important addition if you ask me) and so on. The workplace is a situation where these discrimination laws apply. > [@](#): > > The articles provided do not give enough information. Was the ban on visible tattoos in place when she got that one/got hired, or was it put in place after she got it? If the first, she’s completely at fault; now, whether that is a fireable offense or not, would have to be listed in the policy (several repeats of a minor fault do consist a fireable offense in the Spanish legal system, again I don’t know about UK labor law). If the second, she’s got the right to grumble but it still would have been in her interest to buy some 40DIN pantyhose. Looks to me like the contract changed after she’d been employed there for some years and then let go, rather than being in place from day 1. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/97 "2014-08-22T09:43:46Z")
> [@Lamar\_Mundane](#): > > My experience is that we are at an equilibrium. Tattoos aren’t anymore popular now than they were in 2000. In less than a decade, more people with tats will be leaving the workforce than entering it simply due to demographics. There are a huge number of people who were under 35 in 1990 who are approaching retirement and have tattoos. > > My impression is that things are close to being settled now. Visible tattoos, while a non factor in many settings, are still not accepted in many, if not most, conservative and traditional occupations where facing the public is a part of the job. I don’t see any reason why that would change if it hasn’t by now. On the other hand, probably the biggest pressure to normalise tattoos in the workplace would be, not the numbers of young people entering the workforce who have them, but the number of _managers_ who have them. And that number must still be going up, I would think. As for the OP - I wouldn’t want to work in an office anal enough to have conniptions over a foot butterfly, _or_ employ someone dumb enough not to know they let us women wear trousers these days. They sound both well shot of each other. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/98 "2014-08-22T10:13:53Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Not everything is that easy. Suppose you have a heart with ASS on it, and get told to cover it, or it’s unacceptable. You say that So-&-So doesn’t have to cover HIS heart tattoo with BEC on it. BEC are his girlfriend’s initials. You offer to bring in proof that your girlfriend’s name in Alison Alexa Smith, but you boss isn’t interested. It has to be covered. You feel discriminated against, because your girlfriend’s parents were a little thoughtless when naming her. > > It’s better just to say “Everyone covers.” Nope, still not that hard. I can wear a locket that says BEC but not a locket that says ASS. With or without tattoos, all workplaces make these decisions every day just fine. I don’t care if you don’t like tattoos, but this line of reasoning just doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/99 "2014-08-22T10:29:01Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Suppose you have a heart with ASS on it, and get told to cover it, or it’s unacceptable. You say that So-&-So doesn’t have to cover HIS heart tattoo with BEC on it. BEC are his girlfriend’s initials. You offer to bring in proof that your girlfriend’s name in Alison Alexa Smith, but you boss isn’t interested. Heck, he should probably fire you for your lack of attention to detail. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2014, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821/100 "2014-08-22T13:12:48Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > IANAL, but the concept certainly [does](https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination) exist, classes include all the obvious ones like race, sex, religion (or lack thereof, an important addition if you ask me) and so on. The workplace is a situation where these discrimination laws apply. Allow me to reprhase: does the law of England and Wales limit itself to a specific list of “protected groups”, and you can’t be fired for belonging to one of them, or does it consider the types of discrimination listed in that link as a non-limiting series of examples? So for example, while “being a ManU fan” is not in the list, it would still be considered an unreasonable excuse for a firing unless it could be shown to be reasonable (as in NZ or Spain). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-tattoo-discrimination-should-this-be-a-thing/695821.md?page=6)