Allow me to preface this by saying that if ever there was a time when free advice from an expert on Employee Rights was needed, NOW would be the time. The issue and question at hand: During the 9-5 reign of the “ALMIGHTY DRESS CODE”, where does an employer cross the line between discrimination and professionalism?
To explain: Once upon a time I was hired by a lovely, humane organization to be their Secretary. They bestowed upon me their Handbook and asked me for signature verification of reading the thing cover-to-cover, which I did. Well all the stuff that counts, anyway, i.e. sick-days, vacation, overtime and the ever-important section on Professional Appearance. The heart of the dilemma – can permanent things like tattoos be grouped into the category of “Dress Code” and restricted as such? Can an organization which prides itself on acceptance and tolerance go all “discriminatory” on every inked and pierced person out of the blue just because some old biddies frown on the sacred art of tattoo (and the tiny, innocent nose-stud)? Is a company allowed to tell you to “cover up” just because you happen to get “one-too-many”? 
Do you currently have or intend in the near future to get any kind of body art, i.e. piercings or tattoos?
Is this something we will soon see on pre-employment questionnaires & applications? Last I checked, tattoos were not illegal and at my time of hire I had tattoos on my person which were not hidden. Mind you, they were not displayed during my interview as it was during the fall and were most likely covered under my blouse and pants. My ankle-tattoo may or may not have been visible as I did not go all-out and duct-tape my pants-hem to my leg or tuck them into my socks to prevent them from rising as pants tend to do. I also did not disclose the fact of my inked status to my boss as it didn't seem appropriate. Why should he care what’s under my clolthes and wouldn’t he think it weird or out of place of me for to say what was? He might not have hired me due to “unsuitable disclosure of personal information”!
Please feel free to correct me but is it not, after all, my body? Does an employer have the right to inspect my person to see what appears on it before they deem me “approvable” to hire for a specific position? Can they accept the two tasteful tattoos I had when I was hired then decide to draw the line on a third, fourth of fifth? Will they start making employees sign contracts saying that they promise NOT to get any more visible tattoos during their tenure or else be subject to immediate termination?
I’m pretty sure if put to some of the above questions their reply would be something along the lines of, “Well, alcohol is not illegal either but we don’t allow folks to drink during working hours!” I’m positive all tattooed professionals would chime in to agree that getting tattooed does not induce bouts of errant behavior or DUI’s. Of course, I’m also pretty sure it’s within an employer’s rights to transform into a raging hypocrite wielding the mighty keyboard to demand HR edit the policy & procedure manual to suit the current mood. Don't be surprised if the next change involves limitations to the number of earrings one can have in one's ear...
According to the handbook, items included in the section on personal appearance which are restricted are common-sense items such as the micro mini-skirt, short-shorts, halter/tube/tank-top/cutoff shirts, low-rise pants, tattered or cutoff jeans. Can they really insert some new “rule” insisting that the Program Assistant now wear turtle-necks or scarves in the summer to hide the sunflower tattoo on the back of her neck? Will other staff, including Directors, having tattoos on their hands or wrists be required to employ the use of gloves to hide them? How professional would that look “”?? "Gee, Mr. So-and-So, please pardon my ridiculous figerless gloves but it was common sense according to the Dress Code being that I have 'FUCK YOU!' tattooed on my knuckles."
Please tell me there is some legitimate level of infringement on my civil rights somewhere in the above. Is it not outright discrimination to censor the personal, artistic expression of tattooed people just because a tribal arm-band doesn't fit within the confines of Corporate America, yet the 65-year-old Records Clerk can just slide by with her wackadoodle, Frida-Kahlo-Bratz-doll eyebrows? BEHOLD! - Common sense prevails!!
Please tell me there is some legitimate level of infringement on my civil rights somewhere in the above. Is it not outright discrimination to censor the personal, artistic expression of tattooed people just because a tribal arm-band doesn't fit within the confines of Corporate America, yet the 65-year-old Records Clerk can just slide by with her wackadoodle, Frida-Kahlo-Bratz-doll eyebrows? BEHOLD! - Common sense prevails!!
In the category of “Personal Appearance” and the logic used to dictate what is appropriate for the workplace, what makes body art a worse offense than a Trump comb-over, an ill-fitting skirt or badly-drawn facial hair?
