How does body ink impact candidates' hirability?
.jpg)
Air New Zealand has come under fire yet again for allegedly rejecting a candidate over her body art.
Lynley Baker, who got the tattoo six years ago, was a candidate for a customer service position with the airlines at Tauranga City Airport. As part of the screening process, she disclosed the art inked below her nape.
Baker was disqualified, however, after she was informed the tattoo would supposedly be visible if she wore the company uniform.
“I am disgusted that they are allowed to get away with this type of discrimination,” Baker said.
Air New Zealand has long stood by its prohibition of visible tattoos among customer service staff and cabin crew. In 2013, another job applicant was dismissed from an interview because she had a Maori body art on her arm.
The airline management insisted at the time customers would feel uncomfortable interacting with crew who had visible tattoos “in the close confines of the aircraft cabin environment – regardless of whether the tattoos are considered to be cultural or otherwise”.
In a 2016 interview with HRD Australia, employment lawyer Francessca Lee cautioned companies that would discriminate against people with tattoos to understand the tattoo’s cultural significance.
“It is common practice for an employer to have a policy that regulates an employee’s dress code and appearance, but it is important that an employer does not discriminate on the basis of race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, or age,” said Lee.
“If an employer refused to employ someone with a visible tattoo that was connected to their ethnicity or cultural origin, then the decision could be seen as discrimination on the basis of race,” the lawyer said.
Despite this, four in 10 recruiters admitted to rejecting even a suitable candidate if he or she had a visible tattoo, a recent study by LinkedIn revealed.
Related stories:
Four in ten recruiters reject ‘perfect’ candidate because of tattoo bias
Tattoos in the workplace - what the lawyers say
