Review on the Article "Tattoos and Body Piercings" by Jon D. Bible
In this paper, we will give our review on the article "Tattoos and Body Piercings" by Jon D. Bible. We will give a description and summary of the main points presented by the author and then we will analyze the author's method of presentation. Finally we will give our opinion on the major topic of the article and define it in some detail.
Description of Major Points
The article suggests that any tattooed or pierced person who contests a cover requirement over its tattoos or pierces is most likely face a difficult time in convincing the law over its perspective i.e. that person is most likely to follow the dress code being employed by the employer. Any employee might refer to the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States as its tool for defense and use it on the grounds of freedom of expression but still any court hearings are difficult to agree with the employee.
Since the decision of Garcetti v. Ceballos in 2006 the employees might get some protection on the grounds that their expression does not have any relation with their job duties and rather is a matter of any public concerning topic such as any political issue, social issue, any economic matter or cultural issues. Still many of the court hearings agree that piercings or tattoos are not related to that realm.
Any protection claim from the Fourteenth Amendment is also very likely to fail if the hiring firm treats all of its hired personals in the same manner. In this case the main example comes from the case of Inturri, here all of the tattoos which were worn by the officers were not a problem for their chief. Instead the main issue was a spider web tattoo which was made compulsory for every officer who had it to be covered since it represented itself as a symbol of violence and hostility. Besides this one tattoo any other was not a problem no matter what the others represented or whatever their contents were.
The title VII which deals with religious discrimination can provide protection to the employee regarding its piercings or tattoos but even here any verdict in favor of employee is not completely assured. One of the reasons for this is that the employee might choose to have tattoos which can belong to any religion that the employer is unaware of. The lack of knowledge of the employer regarding the many different religious beliefs or sects may make him to enforce its decision on the employee regardless of the wishes of the employee.
The EEOC compliance manual can help the employees and employers greatly when dealing with issues such as workplace discrimination. This manual has a great amount of information which can give benefit to the senior staff members, attorneys, human resource managers and the overall employers in dealing with their issues which involves religious beliefs, any sort of reasonable accommodation or undue hardship among other issues.
However there are certain issues which are not addressed by this manual, these are the topics where case law is deemed to be inconsistent such as in the cases where the employer who imposes the dress code must abide by a request to terminate the employment of an employee which chooses to show its tattoos or piercings that reflects the employee's own spiritual or religious beliefs.
In other cases where the employee makes any sort of claim that it should be entitled of any sort of religious protection then the employer in this situation should look at the case of Inturri and Riggs to determine if the item being displayed is causing problems at the working environment in disrupting its harmony or causing any sort of public relations issues.
In many cases it has been seen that the tattoos or piercings on display are either threatening or gore in nature which causes disturbance to other personnel in a work environment. Here many cases belonged to the law enforcing agencies such as the police officers, this greatly facilitated the courts in imposing their rulings which insisted strictly that the offensive item should be covered up in order to maintain decency at workplace and make the employees maintain a professional public image.
The main point here is that the employers should apply clear regulations regarding the dress code of its employees, this includes the cases of all sort of tattoos and piercings including those which are often deemed to be difficult to cover such as any head tattoos or piercings which are often very difficult to conceal from the general public.
In cases where any cover is refused by the employee or if any accommodation is not being created to cover up the material or if the employee just refuses to follow the orders of its management then the employer has all the rights to either suspend or discharge the employee which fails to follow the orders given to it. Here, the firm should take note of any legal action which the employee might take against it regarding its rights at workplace.
Although in these scenarios it is most likely that the employer may win the case but there is no clear guarantee to this since one of the main reasons for giving the employer the benefit of judgment is that it almost always states its rules, regulations and policies clearly to the employee before hiring its personals and therefore is not accountable for any action which the employee might think is appropriate and which goes against the policies of the employer.
Author's Method of Presentation
Let's focus on the author Jon D. Bible's method of presentation. In this article he has specifically focused on the difficulties which any employee might face if it wants to sue its employer on the grounds of facing objections due to its body piercings and tattoos. Here the best argument that can be presented by the employee is that it holds the freedom of expression in expressing itself in its desired manner. In any arguments presented by the employee in its defense the author has suggested the ramifications or reactions from the law agencies as well as the employer itself.
The author has taken note of many key clauses as well in order to justify its argument such as the first amendment protection for the employee and the fourteenth amendment. From the perspective of any neutral reader of the author's article it is difficult to deduce that the article is biased in favor of the employer since all the correct reasoning as well as actions which can be taken by the law agencies for or against the employee are mentioned with example cases, these cases include Inturri and Riggs.
Many of the cases which the author has referred to has resulted in the judgment being delivered in favor of the employer, this is a fact rather than a biased opinion regarding the rulings which take place concerning these type of cases. The author has also referred to many important documents in order to provide support to its topic as well as giving the readers more awareness regarding the topic itself. Here it has taken note of the EEOC compliance manual which greatly helps the employer in solving the mentioned issues, therefore it is facts like these that makes this article worth reading and shows the qualities of the author.
Opinion on Major Topic
Our opinion regarding the major topic covering the article is that overall it is a very well written, unbiased and well presented article which has not only shed light on how the employee might react if it faces any legal issues and how the law enforcing agencies will respond to…