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).
Define visible. Visible when you were hanging out with them in casual t-shirts or when they were wearing professional attire?
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.
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.
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.
Casual attire.
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.
Damn Federalis.
While tattoos obviously don’t necessarily mean that you’re a criminal or a gang member, according to this article, studies still show that there may be a correlation between having a tattoo and deviant behavior.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
IANAL, but the concept certainly does 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.
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.
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.
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.
Heck, he should probably fire you for your lack of attention to detail. 
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).