Discrimination in the workplace is relevant to employees having body art. A tattoo can represent one's race, color, religion, or ethnic origin. Throughout this research, it is very transparent that discriminatory acts are widely observed from multiple cases in the workplace. Discrimination can be associated with tattoos due to stigma. The article, "Can an Employer Ban Tattoos in the Workplace" stated, "if an employer does not employ someone or terminates their employment because of their physical features, then this may constitute discrimination subject.” The following acts describe a brief explanation of discrimination in the workplace and what the acts protect.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Brian K Miller, Kay McGlashan Nicols, and Jack Eure said, " To be clear, applicants and employees in the USA are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against unfair discrimination based upon their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in all workplace decisions, unless a business necessity for such discrimination can be proven." The article composed by Brian Elzweig and Donna K. Peeples acknowledges more of an increase in population with people with body art. With an increased amount of people with tattoos, new trends are arising involving court cases. Elzweig and Peeples said, "Tattoos and piercings are considered to be mutable (alterable) characteristics; therefore, they do not automatically receive any special legal protection. Outside of any discriminatory intent that would be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) as amended, mutable characteristics are permitted as a means of discrimination (at least this would not be a violation of federal law)."
Racial Discrimination Act of 1975
Employers who are seen as discriminating in the workplace usually do it because they are trying to enforce a dress code policy. The Racial Discrimation Act of 1975 explains,"Nullifying or impairing that freedom of expression, such as a requirement to keep tattoos covered up, may constitute a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) unless the requirement was reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case. Each case would need to be looked at on its own merits and further judicial guidance in this field would be of assistance. Nevertheless, it seems that an employer would need to be able to demonstrate that there were compelling business reasons which supported the action taken" (Ottley and Sowden).
Equal Opportunity Act of 2010
The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 prevents discrimination against physical features. If a employer terminates a employee due to physical features, there is a case of discrimination. For instance the article states, "this may constitute discrimination subject to the following relevant exceptions: If the position is for dramatic or an artistic performance, photographic or modeling work or any similar employment,in domestic employment in the employers home, discrimination against a person on the basis of their physical features may be permitted if it is reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety or property of any person (including the person discriminated against)" (Ottley and Sowden).
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Brian K Miller, Kay McGlashan Nicols, and Jack Eure said, " To be clear, applicants and employees in the USA are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against unfair discrimination based upon their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in all workplace decisions, unless a business necessity for such discrimination can be proven." The article composed by Brian Elzweig and Donna K. Peeples acknowledges more of an increase in population with people with body art. With an increased amount of people with tattoos, new trends are arising involving court cases. Elzweig and Peeples said, "Tattoos and piercings are considered to be mutable (alterable) characteristics; therefore, they do not automatically receive any special legal protection. Outside of any discriminatory intent that would be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) as amended, mutable characteristics are permitted as a means of discrimination (at least this would not be a violation of federal law)."
Racial Discrimination Act of 1975
Employers who are seen as discriminating in the workplace usually do it because they are trying to enforce a dress code policy. The Racial Discrimation Act of 1975 explains,"Nullifying or impairing that freedom of expression, such as a requirement to keep tattoos covered up, may constitute a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) unless the requirement was reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case. Each case would need to be looked at on its own merits and further judicial guidance in this field would be of assistance. Nevertheless, it seems that an employer would need to be able to demonstrate that there were compelling business reasons which supported the action taken" (Ottley and Sowden).
Equal Opportunity Act of 2010
The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 prevents discrimination against physical features. If a employer terminates a employee due to physical features, there is a case of discrimination. For instance the article states, "this may constitute discrimination subject to the following relevant exceptions: If the position is for dramatic or an artistic performance, photographic or modeling work or any similar employment,in domestic employment in the employers home, discrimination against a person on the basis of their physical features may be permitted if it is reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety or property of any person (including the person discriminated against)" (Ottley and Sowden).