Leah Perri/Winonan

“Do NOT get a tattoo,” I recall my father saying to me on several occasions growing up. “You will never get a job,” he would say. While this may have been true at one point, is it really the case anymore?

A generation or two ago, tattoos were most commonly associated with the “rebels” of society or those with a criminal background. More and more, however, tattoos are becoming commonplace—not only among athletes and celebrities, but also among everyday citizens. Hairstylists, musicians, and artists “play the part” by having tattoos, but there has also been a rise in professionals getting “inked up.”

This rising popularity of tattoos and other body modifications, of course, brings about major issues in the working world. Is it okay for an employer to turn away a potential valuable employee based on their appearance?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals from employer discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. So unless a tattoo is of a binding religious significance (religious significance being very disputable), an employee can choose whether or not to hire you or let you go based on your tattoos. Is this fair? Is outward appearance the main factor employers should be looking at?

I would venture to say no. A person’s body art is not a reflection of their skill set, intelligence, working capabilities, or customer service. Just because someone has a tattoo does not necessarily make them “unprofessional.”

However, I do understand a business owner’s unease over hiring someone with a particularly offensive or vulgar tattoo. If you are visibly marking your body with a swastika, don’t be surprised when you can’t get a job anywhere.

Still, it is a silent prejudice in the working world, and workers are unable to protect themselves legally from this discrimination. In most court cases, employers are still being given the benefit of the doubt over employees, ruling that they have a right to enforce their own dress code policies.

While I agree that business owners have this right, I think changes need to be made to adapt to the changing times.

In order to attract and draw in the best young talent, companies should take a more contemporary approach and embrace employee self-expression. What a shame it is to turn away a talented, creative, valuable individual based on his or her body art. As long as that person is well qualified for the job, they should be hired based on those credentials alone.

Additionally, dress code policies should be explicit and consistent with each employee. Putting a limit on the number of visible tattoos an employee can have and restricting certain body parts from being tattooed would be accommodating. I think most would agree that a small wrist tattoo is less distracting than a neck or facial tattoo.

It comes down to communication and compromise. Employers need to be more understanding of the changing culture and focus on the more important qualifications when hiring employees.

The times are changing, that’s for sure. It will be interesting to see if tattoos will no longer carry this negative connotation in society years down the road. As the younger generation moves forward and replaces the old, maybe we won’t even bat an eye when we see people openly displaying their tattoos in the professional world.

Removing the tattoo is not the problem— removing the stigma is.

Contact Leah at [email protected]