Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • JR on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Jan on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Mark on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Joe on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Phil on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Lee on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Wearing One’s Heart on One’s “Sleeve”

posted by Miriam Cherry

Recently I read this quick little “work manners” piece about tattoos in the workplace. I’ve read a few other things that seem to indicate that a number of employers are asking workers to cover up their tattoos – obviously a difficult or impossible task if the tattoos are on the worker’s face or hands. Seems inevitable that some of this will result in dismissals, and then the following litigation.

I suppose this fits into the literature developing about employers and evolving standards of dress and grooming in the workplace. Courts have tended to defer to employers on these standards, (even though some of the rationale of those cases is difficult to justify). Given that, and the at will rule, I have a feeling that many claims may end up being couched as discrimination in order to show a congnizable claim. In other words, someone will try to argue that this is discrimination against skin color – if it’s wrong to discriminate against someone who has a particular color of skin overall, isn’t it also wrong to discriminate against someone who has many different colors of skin, based on his/her tattoo?


However, the argument is not completely analogous, as expressing oneself through body art is a “choice,” not an immutable characteristic or freighted with longstanding prejudice that we need to correct through the legal system.

In fact, the tattoo itself is a determined choice to communicate (something), and in fact those who I’ve talked to who have them are extremely committed to that idea of that expression.

Obviously some of that has to do with the subject matter/content of the tattoo itself. If someone decides to get a tattoo to express love for a partner that reads “I heart Barry,” that may be different from getting a tattoo right before the last election reading “I heart Barry O,” (unless you are Michelle Obama and then, I suppose, those messages are one and the same).

Most of the tattoos I see people sporting around San Francisco are not politically related or express any particular intellectual thought. Instead many – fairies, symbols – are artistic and others – a skull, chain, etc. – do not communicate much of anything at all (other than to look menacing or perhaps convey rebellion).

So I go back and forth on this, trying to balance the interests. I am sympathetic, and understand, an employer wanting patrons to have trust in employees – and I’m not sure that the tattoos help that process (unless it’s a place of business that is deliberately provocative – the hip bar, artsy hair salon, etc.) But perhaps I’m behind the times. Tattoos – having them or not having them, covering them or not covering them – is a youth/age thing, and I’m now on the wrong side of the divide. Culture/religion/class is lurking there too, as is a potential gap between personal expression and professionalism.


 November 19, 2008 at 3:28 pm   Posted in: Employment Law   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (4)

  1. John Armstrong - November 19, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Have you read David Foster Wallace’s essay Tense Present? It touches on the same sorts of ideas, but from the perspective of (written) language.

  2. JP - November 19, 2008 at 4:14 pm

    These cases arise fairly commonly as religious discrimination cases. (It seems many Church of Body Modification members became converts just after they realized their tattoo might cost them their job.) The legal questions are generally whether the plaintiff/employee articulates a sincerely held belief (courts defer to the employee), and whether the employer made a reasonable accommodation (which has several subfactors, mostly deferential to the employer).

    I’m curious about whether you have any cases in mind that have difficult to justify rationales?

    The definition of “color” under Title VII is pretty well established, and tattoos would simply not be covered. Also (under existing law) whether or not a characteristic is immutable is pretty irrelevant to determining whether discrimination is lawful or not. Discrimination against someone who is ugly, or tall, or blonde is generally legal (so long as gender, race, disability, etc. are not motivating factors).

    Finally, does your suggestion that body art is not “freighted with longstanding prejudice that we need to correct through the legal system” mean you don’t think there is longstanding prejudice, or that you don’t think it needs legal correction?

  3. Miriam Cherry - November 19, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Hi, JP,

    For the most part, I think you fairly state the state of existing claims/law here. Except, I would point out that (while not explicit) this idea of immutable characteristic is inherent in many of the categories that we have decided are protected. Items that are “choices” get labeled differently in many instances than factors you are born with. The rubber hits the road, I think, in some areas like obesity – disability or choice?

    When I say that the grooming/dress cases have some difficult rationale, it’s that the sub rosa interest is often gender conformity – you must wear makeup, wear certain clothes that make you look feminine, etc. (i.e. Jesperson v. Harrah’s) or a policy that seems to disadvantage a group (Paulette Caldwell’s “hair piece” on how policies against dreadlocks/braids are a race issue). So that’s what I was thinking of there.

    Re: body art and prejudice. I admitted in the post that I struggled with this. If someone is fired for not complying with a dress or grooming policy because of tattoos, it may be “discrimination” but certainly a discrimination less invidious than that of race, which was what I was trying to convey in that part that you are quoting. There is, though, this element of “freedom of expression.” And, I think we can agree, this is not a value that is currently present in US employment law. There may be both good and bad parts to that statement, but I think that’s where I was feeling the tension – between the idea of the individual’s concept of identity and the doctrine which does not go in that direction whatever.

  4. Maryland Conservatarian - November 20, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    Best leave it in the hands of the people who have the most to lose by getting it wrong – the employers. Otherwise, invariably, we will come across the situation where one person’s freedom of expression comes up against that newfound freedom against being offended…and someone with a tattoo displaying Pro-Life artwork, Ronald Reagan’s image or – committing today’s most serious secular mortal sin – an anti-Obama message will once again be an example of the limits to our modern-day celebration of diversity

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress