HRD forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Executive fired for foot tattoo

Notify me of new replies via email
HC Online | 25 Jul 2014, 11:32 AM Agree 0
Tattoos are becoming increasingly common, but for one company, an employee’s inked foot was a step too far.
  • Delia | 25 Jul 2014, 12:50 PM Agree 0
    Hooley Dooley - a minefield here. If you were told before your employment that there was a policy for no visible tattoos, then it is your own fault, and you have to accept the consequences, or choose not to be employed in that particular business.

    But surely, if the policy was implemented after your employment began, and you already had a tattoo, then maybe there are grounds for unfair dismissal?

    By the sheer number of people wearing tattoo body art, and the fact that a tattoo does not affect work performance; I think there is also a case for discrimination.
  • J Wagner | 25 Jul 2014, 12:59 PM Agree 0
    Seriously? I imagine that a tattoo on her foot which had been there throughout the recruitment process presumably, would impede her ability to perform in the role?
  • HC | 28 Jul 2014, 10:27 AM Agree 0
    Tattoos are a choice, albeit one that is harder to change than purple hair or piercings. If you want to wear a megadeth t-shirt and shave half your head then you need to find a workplace that will accept that, same for tattoos.

    Personally I think it is a stupid rule, but then there are a lot of silly rules out there. Why do I have to wear a suit in the middle of summer?
  • Keiran H | 28 Jul 2014, 12:11 PM Agree 0
    Isn't discriminating against someone because they have tattoos the same as discrimating against someone because of the colour of their skin? Shouldn't what's on the inside be what is important. Would Da Vinci's work have been less impressive had he been sporting ink? Would Usain Bolt run slower if having to cart tattoos around? Seriously, discrimination is unacceptable in any form.
  • Amanda Rochford | 28 Jul 2014, 12:35 PM Agree 0
    um unprofessional would be hiring someone with a visible tattoo (tacit agreement between the partieis that the tattoo is irrelevant) and then years later changing your policy without consulting with the other party to the agreement. Also unprofessional to hire based on a personal dislike of tattoos. They dont affect performance even when others can see them.
  • caca | 28 Jul 2014, 02:03 PM Agree 0
    I can understand when a workplace has those rules in effect as they would like to portray a certain imagine or brand, however a foot tattoo seems like it would be so easy to cover up when necessary. I can't imagine she couldn't wear pants suits with dark coloured stockings.
    Unless I missed it, this article doesn't say what her role or company actually is. I think that would be important to know.
  • Anon | 28 Jul 2014, 08:16 PM Agree 0
    Her role: former Salisbury FM executive
Post a reply