In 1993, Sheldon Swartzentruber was hired as an employee of Gunite Corporation. In 1998, Swartzentruber was fired after coming into work with a “tattoo extending from his elbow to his wrist that depicted a burning cross and a hooded man” (Peeples & Elzweig 15) and refusing to cover it. Swartzentruber sued Gunite, a case that came to be known as Swartzentruber v. Gunite Corporation, on the account that he was receiving unfair treatment and prejudice against his religion in the Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Evidently, recognizing that this was not a legitimate argument, the courts ruled in favor of Gunite. In a similar case, Kimberly Cloutier sued Costco Wholesalers, in Cloutier v. Costco, for firing her after refusing to
…show more content…
However, after joining the Church of Body Modification, Cloutier began to accumulate more piercings and tattoos. As in Swartzentruber v. Gunite Corporation, the courts did not rule in favor of Cloutier or the Church of Body Modification. However, in 2005, courts ruled in favor of employee, Ra Rangel, in the EEOC v. Red Robin. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers’ tattoo policy is very clear; “body piercings and tattoos must not be visible” (Peeples & Elzweig 17). Rangel, an Egyptian immigrant, possessed a religious tattoo on his wrist. Due to his circumstances, Rangel’s manager allowed him to sport the tattoo. However, Rangel’s Senior Regional Manager demanded that he cover his tattoos with wristbands. In Rangel’s religion, covering the tattoos would be considered disrespectful towards his G-d. Therefore, he did not cover the tattoos. As a result, the Senior Regional Manager fired Rangel. After much dispute, the Ninth Court of Appeals confirmed that there was no “evidence of actual customer complaints of Rangel’s tattoos” (Peeples & Elzweig 17), and ruled in favor of …show more content…
Under Title VII, it is encouraged for employers to create dress codes that are drastically less discriminatory towards the appearance of potential employees. After the case against Rangel, the court demanded that Red Robin alter their tattoo policy to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees. While this may seemingly be a fair solution, it is very difficult to draw the lines on what is perceived to be “religious” or not. Rangel, for instance, had wrist tattoos, which are a religious tradition in Egypt. Likewise, many other African countries use facial tattoos to distinguish which tribe they are descendants of. However, what if you are an Italian man from Brooklyn with a tattoo of Jesus on the cross on the bicep? While this is not a tradition in the Catholic Church, it is still a tattoo with religious elements. One can argue that the employer of this Italian man has no right to tell him about his culture and that this impedes on his first amendment right to freedom of speech and his right to freedom of self-expression. Therefore, one good solution would be to make an addition to the current Title VII, mandating that unless otherwise specified by the company, employees cannot have more than 30% of visible skin with body modifications showing at
However, after joining the Church of Body Modification, Cloutier began to accumulate more piercings and tattoos. As in Swartzentruber v. Gunite Corporation, the courts did not rule in favor of Cloutier or the Church of Body Modification. However, in 2005, courts ruled in favor of employee, Ra Rangel, in the EEOC v. Red Robin. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers’ tattoo policy is very clear; “body piercings and tattoos must not be visible” (Peeples & Elzweig 17). Rangel, an Egyptian immigrant, possessed a religious tattoo on his wrist. Due to his circumstances, Rangel’s manager allowed him to sport the tattoo. However, Rangel’s Senior Regional Manager demanded that he cover his tattoos with wristbands. In Rangel’s religion, covering the tattoos would be considered disrespectful towards his G-d. Therefore, he did not cover the tattoos. As a result, the Senior Regional Manager fired Rangel. After much dispute, the Ninth Court of Appeals confirmed that there was no “evidence of actual customer complaints of Rangel’s tattoos” (Peeples & Elzweig 17), and ruled in favor of …show more content…
Under Title VII, it is encouraged for employers to create dress codes that are drastically less discriminatory towards the appearance of potential employees. After the case against Rangel, the court demanded that Red Robin alter their tattoo policy to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees. While this may seemingly be a fair solution, it is very difficult to draw the lines on what is perceived to be “religious” or not. Rangel, for instance, had wrist tattoos, which are a religious tradition in Egypt. Likewise, many other African countries use facial tattoos to distinguish which tribe they are descendants of. However, what if you are an Italian man from Brooklyn with a tattoo of Jesus on the cross on the bicep? While this is not a tradition in the Catholic Church, it is still a tattoo with religious elements. One can argue that the employer of this Italian man has no right to tell him about his culture and that this impedes on his first amendment right to freedom of speech and his right to freedom of self-expression. Therefore, one good solution would be to make an addition to the current Title VII, mandating that unless otherwise specified by the company, employees cannot have more than 30% of visible skin with body modifications showing at