Everyone knows it’s not acceptable to look like the man at the tattoo parlor who has his whole body covered in tattoos and piercings while you are at work. What about small tattoos; are those acceptable? And what about a small piercings, such as nose or lip? Tattoos and piercings in the workplace create difficult situations resulting in court cases, job endangerment, business judgement, or resulting in concealing the body modification.
Many of the workplace conflicts with tattoos and piercings lead to going to court. In the court case, EEOC v. Red Robin, Edward Rangel sued Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. claiming religious discrimination. Rangel was hired by Red Robin in December of 2001 signing a Uniform/Appearance policy stating “body piercings …show more content…
Gunite Corporation, research shows Gunite had no specific policy against tattoos as a whole, but states that tattoos that are offensive need to be covered. The employee came to work one day with a “Burning Cross” promoting the Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Other employees reported they found it offensive and threatening. Kramer states in “Recent Developments in Government Operations and Liability Generation Y: Tattoos, Piercings, and Other Issues for the Private and Public Employer” “at the time the employee was told to cover up, the employee did not tell his supervisor that the tattoo was religious in nature or that his religious beliefs required him to display the tattoo at work” (Kramer 4). A manager at Gunite found the tattoo to be offensive to him and said it could lead to a hostile work environment (Elzweig 15). Swartzentruber established his religious discrimination claim on the fact that for numerous amount of years he alleged to be “a member of the Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, a religious organization” (Swartzentruber 979) (Elzweig 15). Prima Facie translates to “at first appearance” (Dictionary.com). “The court dismissed the case on summary judgement that Swartzentruber could not establish a prima facie case since he put forth no evidence that his religious beliefs were infringed by being forced to cover his tattoos” (Elzweig
Many of the workplace conflicts with tattoos and piercings lead to going to court. In the court case, EEOC v. Red Robin, Edward Rangel sued Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. claiming religious discrimination. Rangel was hired by Red Robin in December of 2001 signing a Uniform/Appearance policy stating “body piercings …show more content…
Gunite Corporation, research shows Gunite had no specific policy against tattoos as a whole, but states that tattoos that are offensive need to be covered. The employee came to work one day with a “Burning Cross” promoting the Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Other employees reported they found it offensive and threatening. Kramer states in “Recent Developments in Government Operations and Liability Generation Y: Tattoos, Piercings, and Other Issues for the Private and Public Employer” “at the time the employee was told to cover up, the employee did not tell his supervisor that the tattoo was religious in nature or that his religious beliefs required him to display the tattoo at work” (Kramer 4). A manager at Gunite found the tattoo to be offensive to him and said it could lead to a hostile work environment (Elzweig 15). Swartzentruber established his religious discrimination claim on the fact that for numerous amount of years he alleged to be “a member of the Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, a religious organization” (Swartzentruber 979) (Elzweig 15). Prima Facie translates to “at first appearance” (Dictionary.com). “The court dismissed the case on summary judgement that Swartzentruber could not establish a prima facie case since he put forth no evidence that his religious beliefs were infringed by being forced to cover his tattoos” (Elzweig