Let Me Take a Look at That Tattoo...

here is no question that tattoos, body piercings, and other forms of self-expression have become commonplace in modern society, especially among the Gen X and Gen Y demographic. As a result, employers have to deal with these issues in the workplace, even in companies that traditionally have had conservative dress and appearance expectations such as high-end restaurants and luxury hotels.

remains, can an employer curb the limits of its employees self-expression in the form of tattoos, piercings, extremes in dress, jewelry, and hairstyles at work without getting sued? The answer is yes!

In fact, employers have a lot of control over the dress and appearance of their employees. The key is to carefully draft and consistently enforce a reasonable dress code. There is no legal requirement for a dress or appearance policy. But, Although we as a society seem to having such a policy in place before have become much more accepting of a tattoo, nose ring, haircut, or head individuals choices for self-expression, covering becomes an issue allows you we dont all necessarily agree that this to defend claims of discrimination. More is good for business. So the question importantly, a well written policy can

help protect your propertys public image, promote a productive work environment, comply with health and safety standards, and even prevent claims of unlawful harassment.

must be avoided.

Its also a good idea to list examples of specific clothing items that are not acceptable at work, such as, jeans, t-shirts, sweatshirts, shorts, miniskirts (more than 3 above the knee), hot pants, short tops, A Good-Looking Policy halter tops, backless dresses, flip When drafting and implementing flops, tennis shoes, sandals, hats, an appearance policy, the key etc. to its success is to ensure that the policy is based on justifiable The policy should address business reasons and does not piercings by stating that the have a disproportionate effect companys professional image can on particular segments of the be tarnished because of guests workforce, particularly those in a negative reactions to nose rings, protected category. For example, eyebrow rings and tongue studs or requiring female employees to similar piercings, can conceivably wear uniforms or smocks, contact create certain safety hazards in the lenses, or sexually provocative workplace, and are not allowed. clothing and not requiring the With respect to tattoos, the policy same of male employees has should state that the hotels or been found to violate federal law, restaurants upscale image can specifically, Title VII of the Civil also be adversely affected by an Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, employees display of significant, as with all employment policies, visible body tattoos. You can justify you must ensure that such not allowing any employee who policies are applied consistently interacts with customers or guests and fairly, without regard to an to have visible tattoos. applicants or employees race, sex, gender, national origin, religion, Although employers are well color, disability, age, or any other within their rights to set limits and restrictions on employee dress protected status. and appearance, be cautious of A well-drafted appearance policy some potential pitfalls with such should address all aspects of policies, including claims for employee dress and appearance gender, religion, national origin, and should clearly explain that race, and disability discrimination the companys professional claims. At a minimum, carefully atmosphere is maintained, in part, consider employee complaints by the image it presents to its guests that the policy interferes with and customers. Thus, the policy their rights. Also, when a situation should state that all employees calls for accommodation of an are expected to present a neat individual with certain religious and well-groomed appearance. beliefs or a disability, be prepared The policy should be clear that to discuss such requests and extremes in dress, including flashy, to come up with a reasonable skimpy or revealing outfits and accommodation of an individuals other non-businesslike clothing, beliefs or limitations.

Of course, any request by an employee that would jeopardize or get in the way of guest services and safety will likely not be deemed reasonable. Nevertheless, because state and local laws vary, if any of these situations arise, check with appropriate legal counsel, and be prepared to modify the policy if necessary. G r a c e Horoupian is a partner in the Irvine office of Fisher & Phillips. Her practice is focused on representing employers in a variety of employment cases, including claims for civil rights violations, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, wage and hour claims, ADA and ADEA violations, unfair business practices, misappropriation of trade secrets, and class action disputes. Grace represents employers in both state and federal courts as well as before state and federal agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.