AlphaButch
Forum Lieutenant
- 229
- 0
- 0
Tattoos and piercings are not a protected class by the ADA. However, they may be covered by the EEOC if they are for religious beliefs.
As per, EEOC Directives Transmittal 915.003 and 29 C.F.R. Part 1605.
Religious tattoos and piercings are protected and an employer must accomodate them IF they do not cause more than a de minimis cost, undue hardship or burden on their operations.
In the matter of dress and grooming codes, U.S. courts have already concluded that causing conflict with the public image the employer wishes to convey to customers falls under the undue hardship. As long as there is no intersection of discrimination regarding any of the protected classes.
Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004).
However, as per later rulings - this hardship cannot be hypothetical and must be proven. i.e. customer complaints, loss of revenue, etc.
EEOC v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., 2005 WL 2090677 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2005), Brown v. F.L. Roberts, 419 F. Supp. 2d 7, 17 (D. Mass. 2006), EEOC v. Chriskoll, Inc., d/b/a Brookhaven Burger King, Civil Action No. 06-cv-1197 (E.D. Pa. consent decree filed December 3, 2007)
Most employers know these standards and as a common practice will make a long sleeve shirt available to you. If you choose not to use it, then you can be terminated without them worrying about discrimination as they have provided reasonable accomodation.
In the case of the article involving the nose ring article mentioned, the case was settled out of court. Which in no way establishes any legal ruling.
Disclaimer - I am not offering legal advise, only citing established case law. The EEOC themselves prefer that everything be ruled on a case by case basis.
As per, EEOC Directives Transmittal 915.003 and 29 C.F.R. Part 1605.
Religious tattoos and piercings are protected and an employer must accomodate them IF they do not cause more than a de minimis cost, undue hardship or burden on their operations.
In the matter of dress and grooming codes, U.S. courts have already concluded that causing conflict with the public image the employer wishes to convey to customers falls under the undue hardship. As long as there is no intersection of discrimination regarding any of the protected classes.
Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004).
However, as per later rulings - this hardship cannot be hypothetical and must be proven. i.e. customer complaints, loss of revenue, etc.
EEOC v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., 2005 WL 2090677 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2005), Brown v. F.L. Roberts, 419 F. Supp. 2d 7, 17 (D. Mass. 2006), EEOC v. Chriskoll, Inc., d/b/a Brookhaven Burger King, Civil Action No. 06-cv-1197 (E.D. Pa. consent decree filed December 3, 2007)
Most employers know these standards and as a common practice will make a long sleeve shirt available to you. If you choose not to use it, then you can be terminated without them worrying about discrimination as they have provided reasonable accomodation.
In the case of the article involving the nose ring article mentioned, the case was settled out of court. Which in no way establishes any legal ruling.
Disclaimer - I am not offering legal advise, only citing established case law. The EEOC themselves prefer that everything be ruled on a case by case basis.
Last edited by a moderator: