# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
First Amendment definition, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting Congress from interfering with freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or petition. See more.

# data[].attributes.headline
Morgan Brown Argumentative Essay - Google Docs

# data[].attributes.subject
Morgan Brown Argumentative Essay - Google Docs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First Amendment ( Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tattoos in the Workplace: What's an Employer to Do? | AllBusiness.com

# data[].attributes.subject
Tattoos in the Workplace: What's an Employer to Do? | AllBusiness.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tattoos used to be considered part of a counterculture. It's probably a fair statement to say that for years, many people associated tattoos with gangs, bikers, and other groups that were thought to operate outside of the social center. Today, tattoos have gained wider social acceptance and more and more people, men and women alike, have them. People with tattoos work in a variety of industries and hold entry-level jobs as well as top executive positions. So, what's an employer to do? Is body art a workplace issue? Does having a visible tattoo say anything about an individual that is relevant to his or her job?

In today's global marketplace, employers are taking more seriously the need to provide a work environment that welcomes employees from many different backgrounds. The competition to attract and retain skilled workers has resulted in corporate cultures that strive to demonstrate the value placed on individual and group contributions. And there is increasing attention paid to offering a company culture and benefit package that supports a variety of lifestyles. Should someone with a visible tattoo be treated any differently?

Depending on what and where the tattoo is, there may or may not be an issue for employers. The laws still tend to support employer dress code/appearance policies in general and employers retain some flexibility in creating rules that require employees to present themselves in a way that is consistent with the employer's image. But that doesn't mean that banning tattoos altogether is appropriate. In some cases, it can still violate the law.

Many employers have policies that do not allow visible tattoos. Depending on the employer's industry and the type of job, this may make sense. For example, the odds are that a four-star hotel may not want the concierge to have large tattoos of skulls and crossbones on the back of each hand. But the same hotel may have less concern if a dishwasher in the kitchen has those same tattoos because direct contact with the hotel's customers is minimal. From a business perspective, the issue for the hotel is to write a policy that draws appropriate lines between jobs in which visible tattoos may or may not be appropriate.

This example is probably a simple one. It can get more complicated, however, if an employer is not thoughtful. For example, what if a bank employs a valued administrative assistant who never has contact with customers? His desk is located in the corporate headquarters and his interactions are strictly internal. Is it okay if this person arrives at work one day with a star tattooed under his eye? The answer, in part, is dependent on the corporate culture and the bank's general attitude toward tattoos. It also, however, is dependent on the difficulty in recruiting and retaining good administrative assistants.

The odds are that while the bank may not appreciate a facial tattoo, it's probably not worth the chance of losing a good employee or not being able to retain a new one by having a policy that would prohibit the tattoo altogether. On the other hand, the bank may be more concerned about a teller with the same tattoo who regularly interacts with bank customers. In that situation, a policy prohibiting the tattoo may be understandable.

In drafting the policies, it's important to stay focused on the business issues at hand. Policies that prohibit tattoos should not reflect value judgments about tattoos or the people who get them. In fact, many employers would likely be surprised to find out how many current employees have tattoos and simply cover them up at work. So negative assumptions about what tattoos say about the people who have them are very often misplaced.

Issues raised by tattoos can get more complicated when it comes to gender and religion. And employers should be aware of these issues before writing and enforcing policies that prohibit visible tattoos at work. For example, historically, it is likely that more men wore visible tattoos than women. As a result, an interviewer who notices a tattoo on a man's arm may have no reaction. But more and more women are getting tattoos, some of which are visible, and the same interviewer may have an adverse reaction if a tattoo is visible on a female applicant's ankle. In this situation, an employer can be exposed to liability for sex discrimination if the presence of the tattoo was an issue in making the hiring decision.

Religious tattoos can pose even more challenging questions. What if an employee who works directly with customers has a tattoo around his wrist and the company has a policy that prohibits visible tattoos in customer service positions? Is it okay to require the employee to wear sleeves that are long enough to cover the tattoo? The answer is: it depends.

If the tattoo is part of a sincerely held religious belief or practice, and that practice or belief prohibits the employee from covering the tattoo up, the employer may need to allow an exception to the "no visible tattoo" policy. That's because employers are obligated to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs and practices unless doing so poses an undue hardship. In that situation, it is a good practice to ask the employee about the tattoo and find out whether there is a religious basis for it that prohibits them from covering it.

Managers should coordinate with human resources before having that sort of conversation because if it is not handled properly, the manager could say something unintentionally that exposes the company to liability for religious discrimination. But done properly, the manager may find out that the employee is able to cover the tattoo. If not, this employee may be permitted an exception under the policy as a reasonable accommodation. And doing so as an accommodation will not result in having to allow all employees an exception under the "no visible tattoo" policy.

The key for employers is to have a written policy that employees are required to read and sign, and then to enforce that policy consistently. That way, employees are not able to claim that the policy was applied differently to them. And the policies should be based on sound judgment that is in the best interest of the business. That means that employee and customer interests also need to be considered before the policy is drafted.

Work with your human resources department to develop written dress code/appearance policies that are reasonable and can be enforced consistently. Check with human resources and/or legal counsel before talking with an employee about covering a tattoo unless it is clear that the tattoo has no religious significance and having the employee cover the tattoo is consistent with your policy. And remember, making assumptions about the qualifications of people who have tattoos is not only unfounded, it may result in discrimination claims against your company. A woman with a tattoo of a skull on her arm is no less entitled to be judged based on legitimate business factors than a former U.S. naval seaman whose arm is adorned with a tattoo of a ship's anchor.
Barrie Gross is former Vice President and Senior Corporate Counsel (Employment Law) for an international Fortune 1000 company and is a regular contributor to AllBusiness.com. She is the founder of Barrie Gross Consulting, a human resources training and consulting firm dedicated to assisting companies to manage and develop their human capital. Visit Note: The information here does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you have a legal issue or wish to obtain legal advice, you should consult an attorney in your area concerning your particular situation and facts. Nothing presented on this site or in this article establishes or should be construed as establishing an attorney-client or confidential relationship between you and Barrie Gross. This article is provided only as general information, which may or may not reflect the most current legal developments or be complete. www.barriegrossconsulting.com to learn more about Barrie and the services BGC provides.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tattoos in the Workplace: What's an Employer to Do? | AllBusiness.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tattoos used to be considered part of a counterculture. It's probably a fair statement to say that for years, many people associated tattoos with gangs, bikers, and other groups that were thought to operate outside of the social center. Today, tattoos have gained wider social acceptance and more and more people, men and women alike, have them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dress Codes and Grooming - Workplace Fairness

# data[].attributes.subject
Dress Codes and Grooming - Workplace Fairness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many employers require their employees to follow a dress code. Employers regulate clothing, piercings, tattoos, makeup, nails, hair, and more. For the most part these dress codes are legal as long as they are not discriminatory. For example, men and women can have different dress codes if the dress codes do not put an unfair burden on one gender. However, even if a dress code is discriminatory, an employer does not need to make exceptions for certain employees if doing so would place an undue burden on the employer. For example, if someone's religion said they could not wear pants but they worked at a factory that required them to wear pants a court would likely side with the employer as the pants are for the employee's safety. To learn more about your rights with respect to dress codes and grooming, read below:

1. Can my employer tell me how to dress?

2. My employer is telling me how to dress, but no one else is forced to dress that way, is that legal?

3. My employer has dress codes for women, but not for men, is that legal?

4. My boss requires me to wear makeup, and seems to have a much more different dress code for women than for men, is this legal?

5. My boss allows women to wear their hair long, but not men, is that legal?

6. Can a casino, or other employer make me wear a "revealing" or "sexual" uniform?

7. Is my employer allowed to tell me to maintain a certain weight in order to fit into a certain size uniform?

8. Is my employer allowed to deduct the cost of my required uniform from my paycheck?

9. Can my employer tell me how to groom?

10. Is my employer allowed to require me to shave my beard?

11. Is my boss allowed to tell me to cover my tattoos and piercings?

12. Can my employer still tell me what to wear if my religion conflicts with my employer's dress code?

13. Does my employer, or prospective employer, have a responsibility to provide me with a dress code accommodation, when they reasonably know I need one, even if I did not ask for one?

14. Can my employer ban me from wearing union buttons or t-shirts with the union logo?

15. I feel that my employer's dress code has violated my privacy rights or might be discriminatory. What can I do?

1. Can my employer tell me how to dress?

Yes. In general, employers are allowed to regulate their employees' appearance, as long as they do not end up discriminating against certain employees. It is very common, for example, for an employer to require his/her employees to wear a uniform so that all employees appear uniform.

In today's work world, more employers are requiring more formal attire. While in the last decade there was a trend for employers to be more laid back, and they allowed such things as "casual Friday," in the last three to four years, some employers are taking a step back towards requiring a more formal way of dressing. Many employers feel that more formal attire means more productive employees.

2. My employer is telling me how to dress, but no one else is forced to dress that way, is that legal?

No. An employer generally cannot single you out or discriminate against you. Dress code policies must target all employees, not just you.

3. My employer has dress codes for women, but not for men, is that legal?

No. Employers cannot single out or discriminate against a particular group of persons. Dress code policies must target all employees.

4. My boss requires me to wear makeup, and seems to have a much more different dress code for women than for men, is this legal?

While it is not legal to have dress codes only for one sex, but not the other, so far, the law seems to allow different dress codes for women and men, as long as they do not put an unfair burden on one gender more than the other.

For example, Harrah's Casino implemented a dress code requiring women to wear extensive make-up, stockings, and nail polish, and required them to curl or style their hair every day. Men, however, only had to maintain trimmed hair and nails. A 20-year female employee did not want to wear makeup because it made her feel like a sex object, and she was subsequently fired by Harrah's for not complying with the dress code. While this dress code seemed to discriminate against women and impose a greater burden on them, the court held that it was legal to fire the employee because she could not prove that Harrah's requirements were more burdensome for women . However, employees who can prove that the dress code is an unequal burden between male and female employees may be able to successfully bring a sex discrimination claim.

5. My boss allows women to wear their hair long, but not men, is that legal?

Yes. Employers are allowed to enforce different dress code standards for women and men. However, they may not impose a greater burden on either gender.

6. Can a casino, or other employer, make me wear a "revealing" or "sexual" uniform?

Usually yes. If looking sexy is part of your place of work's image, then sexy uniforms can be required. However, there should be a bona fide reason for your employer to require you to wear sexy clothing, and employers are usually not allowed to require sexy uniforms if your workplace has nothing to do with a sexy image. Some unions have successfully fought to prohibit their female members from having to wear sexy uniforms at work, but these are rare cases.

Requiring revealing or sexual uniforms where no legitimate business purpose exists may constitute sexual harassment. An employer may be liable for either sexually harassing employees or encouraging others (like fellow employees or customers) to sexually harass employees. If you feel that your employer's dress code has led to sexual harassment and violation of your labor rights, please contact your state department of labor or a private attorney.

7. Is my employer allowed to tell me to maintain a certain weight in order to fit into a certain size uniform?

Yes and no. In cases where there is discrimination between men and women, such as women having to fit into a small weight range and men being able to fit into a large weight range, the courts have ruled that this is not legal. However, it is not illegal to have a requirement to maintain a certain weight as long as it does not end up in discrimination between men and women.

For example, Borgata Casino announced that it will fire members of its "Borgata Babe" waitstaff if they gain weight. Further, the waitstaff is only given 90 days after pregnancy to get back to their pre-pregnancy weight. The only way that women are allowed a larger uniform, is if they have had a breast augmentation. Some of the waitstaff sued Borgata, but the court ruled that the pollicy is legal because both male and female waitstaff have weight limits and the waitstaff knew what they were agreeing to when they took the job.

8. Is my employer allowed to deduct the cost of my required uniform from my paycheck?

Possibly. Although an employer may deduct the cost of your uniform from your paycheck, it can be illegal under certain circumstances. The Fair Labor Standards Act makes it illegal for your employer to require you to wear a uniform, and then deduct it from your wages IF it causes your wages to fall below the minimum wage standard. Further, it is also illegal for your employer to make any profit on the uniform by deducting it from your wages.

Some states have passed laws prohibiting employers from being able to deduct the cost of uniforms from wages, but these laws are often narrow and do not provide broad protection. However, there have been successful lawsuits challenging employers' requirements that retail employees wear the clothing sold by their employers, in order to have the store's "look."

9. Can my employer tell me how to groom?

Yes. Your employer is allowed to tell you how to groom, at the very least to the extent that your employer is simply asking you to be generally clean and presentable on the job.

10. Is my employer allowed to require me to shave my beard?

Maybe. Requiring an employee to shave his beard can end up in discrimination, because certain races, such as African Americans, have disorders that make it more burdensome to shave. For example, men who have Pseudofollicullitis Barbae, a skin disorder that is specific to African Americans, experience pain when shaving. Several individuals have successfully challenged companies that have required them to shave their beards.

However, if you do not have a skin condition as a result of your race and just prefer to have facial hair for personal and/or appearance reasons, you may not be able to challenge this requirement, as it is not discriminatory as applied to you.

11. Is my boss allowed to tell me to cover my tattoos and piercings?

Yes. Many employers are worried that piercings or tattoos will offend customers and they are allowed to tell you to cover your "body art".

In Cloutier v. Costco, an employee who claimed her eyebrow piercing was part of her religious observance as a member of the Church of Body Modification, and objected to Costco's dress code policy after she was fired for refusing to remove her eyebrow piercing, had her legal claim rejected. The court ruled that the accommodation requested by the employee - to be exempt from the policy - would be an undue hardship on Costco, as it would adversely affect the company's public image and would detract from the neat, clean and professional image it wishes its employees to portray.

Based on this ruling, it will be very difficult for those who want to bring legal challenges to succeed, especially if the basis for their choice to be pierced is not a religious one.

12. Can my employer still tell me what to wear if my religion conflicts with my employer's dress code?

If your religion requires you to wear, or forbids you from wearing certain clothing,like wearing a hijab, or a yarmulke, or not wearing pants, you may have some protection. Courts have held that employers have a legal obligation to reasonably accommodate their employees' religious beliefs so long as it does not impose a burden or undue hardship on the employer under Title VII.

A court held, for example, that a particular woman did not have to wear pants at work because her religion prohibited it, when her boss did not try to make reasonable accommodations for her religious beliefs. However, when another boss did try to accommodate his employee's religious beliefs, a court found that a certain employee could not demonstrate an anti-abortion button. There have been a number of cases involving hijabs worn by Muslims and turbans worn by Sikhs, which have generally resulted in employers being required to accommodate clothing worn by employees for religious reasons.

If your employer wants to lawfully prevent you from wearing certain clothing, it must show that allowing you to wear this clothing would pose an undue hardship on the business. While customer preference would rarely, if ever, meet the undue burden test, safety hazards often will. For example, a factory may impose clothing restrictions for assembly line workers to protect them from loose clothing getting caught in the machinery or to protect them from getting burns. For more information on this topic please see our page on religious freedom.

13. Does my employer, or prospective employer, have a responsibility to provide me with a dress code accommodation, when they reasonably know I need one, even if I did not ask for one?

Yes. According to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employers must provide "reasonable accommodation" to employees requesting religious accommodations so long as the request does not cause the employer an "undue hardship." However, in light of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores case, where a woman was declined a sales associate job because her hajab violated Abercrombie's "look policy" even though the applicant was not informed of this policy, the Supreme Court held that if management has even a suspicion about an applicant or an employee's religious views, it may violate Federal civil rights laws to not hire or accommodate that applicant or employee, while enforcing a completely neutral job rule.

14. Can my employer ban me from wearing union buttons or t-shirts with the union logo?

You may have a claim under the National Labor Relations Act if the employer attempts to universally ban the wearing of all union insignia, even in a nonunion workplace. Employers are allowed to set neutral policies which prohibit certain types of clothing, such as t-shirts with union logos if the employer bans all t-shirts, if the employer enforces the policy uniformly.

However, several courts have determined that employees have the right to wear union buttons and pins to work, with two exceptions:

if wearing these items creates a safety hazard or,

in the case of workers with public contact, if the employees consistently are required to wear uniforms without buttons and pins.

15. I feel that my employer's dress code has violated my privacy rights or might be discriminatory. What can I do?

While employers have a fair amount of latitude in enforcing dress code provisions, if you feel that your privacy rights have been violated by your employer or believe the enforcement of the dress code is discriminatory, contact your state department of labor, or a private attorney for more information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Midwest New Media, LLC - http://www.midwestnewmedia.com - (513) 742-9150

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dress Codes and Grooming - Workplace Fairness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many employers require their employees to follow a dress code. Employers regulate clothing, piercings, tattoos, makeup, nails, hair, and more. For the most part these dress codes are legal as long as they are not discriminatory. For example, men and women can have different dress codes if the dress codes do not put an unfair burden on one gender.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
114 quotes have been tagged as tattoos: Johnny Depp: 'My body is my journal, and my tattoos are my story.', Jack London: 'Show me a man with a tattoo and...

# data[].attributes.headline
Tattoos in the Workplace: What's an Employer to Do? | AllBusiness.com

# data[].attributes.subject
Tattoos in the Workplace: What's an Employer to Do? | AllBusiness.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tattoos used to be considered part of a counterculture. It's probably a fair statement to say that for years, many people associated tattoos with gangs, bikers, and other groups that were thought to operate outside of the social center. Today, tattoos have gained wider social acceptance and more and more people, men and women alike, have them. People with tattoos work in a variety of industries and hold entry-level jobs as well as top executive positions. So, what's an employer to do? Is body art a workplace issue? Does having a visible tattoo say anything about an individual that is relevant to his or her job?

In today's global marketplace, employers are taking more seriously the need to provide a work environment that welcomes employees from many different backgrounds. The competition to attract and retain skilled workers has resulted in corporate cultures that strive to demonstrate the value placed on individual and group contributions. And there is increasing attention paid to offering a company culture and benefit package that supports a variety of lifestyles. Should someone with a visible tattoo be treated any differently?

Depending on what and where the tattoo is, there may or may not be an issue for employers. The laws still tend to support employer dress code/appearance policies in general and employers retain some flexibility in creating rules that require employees to present themselves in a way that is consistent with the employer's image. But that doesn't mean that banning tattoos altogether is appropriate. In some cases, it can still violate the law.

Many employers have policies that do not allow visible tattoos. Depending on the employer's industry and the type of job, this may make sense. For example, the odds are that a four-star hotel may not want the concierge to have large tattoos of skulls and crossbones on the back of each hand. But the same hotel may have less concern if a dishwasher in the kitchen has those same tattoos because direct contact with the hotel's customers is minimal. From a business perspective, the issue for the hotel is to write a policy that draws appropriate lines between jobs in which visible tattoos may or may not be appropriate.

This example is probably a simple one. It can get more complicated, however, if an employer is not thoughtful. For example, what if a bank employs a valued administrative assistant who never has contact with customers? His desk is located in the corporate headquarters and his interactions are strictly internal. Is it okay if this person arrives at work one day with a star tattooed under his eye? The answer, in part, is dependent on the corporate culture and the bank's general attitude toward tattoos. It also, however, is dependent on the difficulty in recruiting and retaining good administrative assistants.

The odds are that while the bank may not appreciate a facial tattoo, it's probably not worth the chance of losing a good employee or not being able to retain a new one by having a policy that would prohibit the tattoo altogether. On the other hand, the bank may be more concerned about a teller with the same tattoo who regularly interacts with bank customers. In that situation, a policy prohibiting the tattoo may be understandable.

In drafting the policies, it's important to stay focused on the business issues at hand. Policies that prohibit tattoos should not reflect value judgments about tattoos or the people who get them. In fact, many employers would likely be surprised to find out how many current employees have tattoos and simply cover them up at work. So negative assumptions about what tattoos say about the people who have them are very often misplaced.

Issues raised by tattoos can get more complicated when it comes to gender and religion. And employers should be aware of these issues before writing and enforcing policies that prohibit visible tattoos at work. For example, historically, it is likely that more men wore visible tattoos than women. As a result, an interviewer who notices a tattoo on a man's arm may have no reaction. But more and more women are getting tattoos, some of which are visible, and the same interviewer may have an adverse reaction if a tattoo is visible on a female applicant's ankle. In this situation, an employer can be exposed to liability for sex discrimination if the presence of the tattoo was an issue in making the hiring decision.

Religious tattoos can pose even more challenging questions. What if an employee who works directly with customers has a tattoo around his wrist and the company has a policy that prohibits visible tattoos in customer service positions? Is it okay to require the employee to wear sleeves that are long enough to cover the tattoo? The answer is: it depends.

If the tattoo is part of a sincerely held religious belief or practice, and that practice or belief prohibits the employee from covering the tattoo up, the employer may need to allow an exception to the "no visible tattoo" policy. That's because employers are obligated to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs and practices unless doing so poses an undue hardship. In that situation, it is a good practice to ask the employee about the tattoo and find out whether there is a religious basis for it that prohibits them from covering it.

Managers should coordinate with human resources before having that sort of conversation because if it is not handled properly, the manager could say something unintentionally that exposes the company to liability for religious discrimination. But done properly, the manager may find out that the employee is able to cover the tattoo. If not, this employee may be permitted an exception under the policy as a reasonable accommodation. And doing so as an accommodation will not result in having to allow all employees an exception under the "no visible tattoo" policy.

The key for employers is to have a written policy that employees are required to read and sign, and then to enforce that policy consistently. That way, employees are not able to claim that the policy was applied differently to them. And the policies should be based on sound judgment that is in the best interest of the business. That means that employee and customer interests also need to be considered before the policy is drafted.

Work with your human resources department to develop written dress code/appearance policies that are reasonable and can be enforced consistently. Check with human resources and/or legal counsel before talking with an employee about covering a tattoo unless it is clear that the tattoo has no religious significance and having the employee cover the tattoo is consistent with your policy. And remember, making assumptions about the qualifications of people who have tattoos is not only unfounded, it may result in discrimination claims against your company. A woman with a tattoo of a skull on her arm is no less entitled to be judged based on legitimate business factors than a former U.S. naval seaman whose arm is adorned with a tattoo of a ship's anchor.
Barrie Gross is former Vice President and Senior Corporate Counsel (Employment Law) for an international Fortune 1000 company and is a regular contributor to AllBusiness.com. She is the founder of Barrie Gross Consulting, a human resources training and consulting firm dedicated to assisting companies to manage and develop their human capital. Visit Note: The information here does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you have a legal issue or wish to obtain legal advice, you should consult an attorney in your area concerning your particular situation and facts. Nothing presented on this site or in this article establishes or should be construed as establishing an attorney-client or confidential relationship between you and Barrie Gross. This article is provided only as general information, which may or may not reflect the most current legal developments or be complete. www.barriegrossconsulting.com to learn more about Barrie and the services BGC provides.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tattoos in the Workplace: What's an Employer to Do? | AllBusiness.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tattoos used to be considered part of a counterculture. It's probably a fair statement to say that for years, many people associated tattoos with gangs, bikers, and other groups that were thought to operate outside of the social center. Today, tattoos have gained wider social acceptance and more and more people, men and women alike, have them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do You Still Need to Hide Your Tattoos and Piercings for Interviews? | Careers | US News

# data[].attributes.subject
Do You Still Need to Hide Your Tattoos and Piercings for Interviews? | Careers | US News

# data[].attributes.headline
How Tattoos Went From Subculture to Pop Culture | Huffington Post

# data[].attributes.subject
How Tattoos Went From Subculture to Pop Culture | Huffington Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's face it, tattoos have burst onto pop culture and have taken over the current media scenery. TV shows based on the tattoo industry are springing up on major networks, social media pages for tattoo culture are numbering in the millions of followers, and you would be hard pressed to take a walk on the street and not see several people sporting leg tats or arm sleeves. Not to mention all the pieces you see on the beach! Tattoos have become a mainstream part of society.

Today, 36 percent of Americans aged 18-25 have at least one tattoo, according to a report done by the Pew Research Center. That's more than one third of America's young adults! It comes as no surprise that the tattoo industry is the sixth fastest-growing retail business in America, as determined by the U.S. News & World Report. This has obviously translated to online interest as well, as there are more than 147 million tattoo related searches each month on Google.

How did this industry achieve this status though? Tattoos have certainly been scrutinized in the past and a visible feature that was once taboo has now become... normal?

Twenty five years ago, tattoos were actually quite common... on sailors, prison inmates, and members of tough motorcycle gangs. If you looked at accountants, pro ping-pong players, or shoe salesmen though, it would have been pretty rare to find some ink. So what happened?

Ironically, tattoos have been around since the beginning of human history. The word tattoo is thought to be derived from both the Polynesian "ta" -- meaning "to strike" -- and the Tahitian "tatau" -- meaning "to mark." So when and where did the tattoo originate? The answer to this question may remain a mystery, but scientific evidence proves that tattoos have been a part of human culture for thousands of years.

In 1991, German hikers on the Oztal Alps (near the border between Italy and Austria) discovered the mummified remains of a prehistoric human. Carbon dating would prove that the human, named Ötzi, had been mummified more than 5,300 years ago. While Ötzi was discovered with primitive tools and arrows, his most unique feature was that his body was adorned with no less than 57 tattoos, all the way from his upper neck to his ankles.

Findings like this continuously have proven that tattoos have been a part of human societies since their inception, as parts of rituals and cultures throughout history and across the globe.

Fast-forward to 2005. Our society still held prejudices against tattoos and, while some people were getting them on their own, no one would say tattoos were a part of pop culture. What changed this? The moment tattoos stepped into society's limelight can be pinpointed to a very specific event: the launching of the first popular tattoo TV show, "Miami Ink". A legendary shop on South Beach, "Miami Ink" housed a unique mix of talented and charismatic tattoo artists. Before this show, only the minority of people with tattoos knew what the inside of a tattoo studio was like. People weren't privy to the amazing work being done there or to the dynamic personalities and various styles of different artists. It made for good TV though, so Miami Ink owner, Ami James, linked up with a major network and ran this reality TV show in his shop. It was a huge success and it changed everything.

Nine years later, Miami Ink has had six seasons and been aired in over 160 countries. Spin-off shows based on other shops ( NY Ink and LA Ink, most notably) as well as Contest-Format shows ( Ink Master) have also been largely successful. The shows opened the channels for the average Joe to look into this "underworld" of tattoos. To realize that the art is impressive, beautiful, and attainable. Every person can have an amazing tattoo. Every person can have their own unique tattoo. Having a tattoo can be an expression of who you are. Or what you believe in. Or something you cherish. Or just something you thought was fun. The prejudice, not having disappeared completely, is certainly greatly diminished.

Tattoo artists became celebrities. Artists like Ami James, Tommy Montoya, Kat von D, and Megan Massacre became famous for their appearances on these shows. Their art was suddenly the focus of mainstream media and their skills were known to all. Everyone wanted to get inked by them. So, naturally, other celebrities started getting inked by them. Rihanna, David Beckham, Angelina Jolie, and Adam Levine, are several examples of mainstream media icons that have tattoos and openly display them. It's a part of who they are now. And fans of these and many other celebrities are now getting inked just like their idols.

Enter social media. Another game-changer for the tattoo industry. The same artists that gained celebrity status on the tattoo TV shows are now followed by millions of people on these platforms (and some of these followers don't even have any tattoos of their own!). These same popular artists, or the individual users themselves, can identify new artists -- the up-and-comers -- that impress all with their unique and groundbreaking designs. Tattoo conventions are exploding in popularity, as everyone wants the chance to meet their favorite artists, post a picture with them on their profiles, and maybe even get a tattoo! And tattoo shops are now the place of legend -- the home of major tattoo artists and a site to see in and of itself.

So what's next? The internet will naturally allow the tattoo industry to continue evolving in ground-breaking ways in order to deliver the best possible content and services for the millions of tattoo-culture followers out there. The gap between the tattoo fan and the artist will get smaller and smaller with these new internet-based platforms and we can already see this trend in sites that offer crowd-sourcing for tattoo designs, such as Tattoodo, where people are linked to artists from all over the world in order to obtain customized tattoo designs. Together with the growing mainstream tattoo community, we anxiously await to see the crazy ways this industry will continue to develop and take over pop culture.
This post is co-authored by Victor Chateaubriand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Tattoos Went From Subculture to Pop Culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let's face it, tattoos have burst onto pop culture and have taken over the current media scenery. TV shows based on the tattoo industry are springing up on major networks, social media pages for tattoo culture are numbering in the millions of followers, and you would be hard pressed to take a walk on the street and not see several people sporting leg tats or arm sleeves.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are Tattoos Becoming More Acceptable for Professionals?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are Tattoos Becoming More Acceptable for Professionals?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Diversity MBA Magazine - Managing Diversity, Executive Leadership Development, Diversity Jobs & Hiring

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Matthew Randall had just finished teaching a class when one of his students approached him. The student pulled out his iPhone and said, "Mr. Randall, I'm thinking about getting this during the summer. What do you think?"

The student showed Randall a picture of a large tattoo, which covered most of the person's arm in the photo.

Tattoos used to be the mark of rebels and people living on the outskirts of society. Now, a significant number of employees and job applicants have tattoos and, increasingly, it is a matter that must be dealt with as part of the job application process.

According to a 2010 Pew Research poll, 23 percent of Americans have at least one tattoo. The poll also stated that 32 percent of Americans ages 30 to 45 have one or more tattoos.

Many businesses and organizations still frown upon employees showing visible tattoos in the workplace. About 60 percent of human resource managers surveyed in 2012 by the Center for Professional Excellence said a tattoo could hinder a job candidate's chances of getting hired, an increase from 57 percent in 2011.

Advice about tattoos is something that Randall, who is executive director of the Center for Professional Excellence at York College of Pennsylvania, deals with frequently. The organization helps students prepare for various careers and workplace issues by offering campus seminars, workshops and other services. The center also researches trends and attitudes among employers in different industries.

Randall suggests that those who have tattoos or are considering getting a first tattoo should think about the long-term effects of the decision. That's the advice he gave to the student with a tattoo picture on his iPhone.

"Look at somebody who you respect who is already 10 or 12 years down the road in their career and say to them, 'What do people think about tattoos at your level?'" Randall said. "Ask 'If I get a tattoo, is that going to hurt or hinder me in my career?'"

Randall suggests that students talk to their parents and to a career mentor about how tattoos could shape their future.

Advice for Employers Concerned About Tattoos

Job candidates should find out the policies for tattoos at companies where they are applying, experts say. Employers' policies can legally range from prohibiting visible tattoos to allowing employees to have visible tattoos in the office, according to Matthew Simpson, an attorney specializing in labor and employment law at Fisher & Phillips LLP law firm's Atlanta office.

Corporate America is still working out tattoo policies, Simpson said, adding: "We frequently get questions from clients about their policies and about what they can and cannot do with respect to dress codes and tattoos in particular."

Employers can restrict the display tattoos as long as an organization implements a policy with no discrimination or preference based on race, gender, ethnicity or religious beliefs, he said. "The exception to that would be if an employee had tattoos for a religious reason, in which case there may be a duty to accommodate that employee's religious beliefs."

Simpson said that, in his experience, legal cases or legal disputes involving tattoos related to business dress codes are rare.

Tips for Tattooed Job Candidates and Employees

Not everyone agrees that job candidates should conform to corporate policies on ink, however. Joshua Coburn, a 32-year-old marketing professional for Brownells, Inc., in Iowa, thinks it should be the other way around.

Coburn has numerous tattoos that cover about 85 percent of his body. He acknowledges that there are career obstacles for tattooed job seekers and employees, but he believes there are always options for finding work. Coburn said tattooed professionals should seek out companies where the culture is more accepting of tattoos. Consider working in a creative industry such as graphic design or the arts, where tattoos are more accepted, or perhaps becoming an entrepreneur, he advises.

"As much as you need a job, the employer needs an employee," Coburn said. "As a job seeker, you are there to interview them as much as they are there to interview you. ...Do you want to live your dream and work for your dream? Or do you want to live for somebody else's dream and work for their dream? That's really what individuals need to ask themselves."

Coburn added that the corporate world should look past the appearance of tattooed job seekers and employees and consider their qualifications. Often, those with tattoos have plenty of self-assurance and have positive attitudes, he said.

How to Address the Issue

How and when corporate culture's views on tattoos will change remains to be seen. For job seekers who have visible tattoos and do not want to get rid of them, career counselors suggest that they proceed with certain principles in mind. Avoid being defensive about tattoos during job interviews, Randall said. Tattooed job candidates should give a simple and positive answer if and when an employer brings up concerns about tattoos.

"The savvy job seeker will say, 'I sense that you're a bit uncomfortable about the tattoo,' " Randall said.

A job candidate should then help bring the interview's focus back to their abilities, he added, by asking the employer, "Can you help me see how having a tattoo might relate to the job here?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Tattoos Becoming More Acceptable for Professionals?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tattoos used to be the mark of rebels and people living on the outskirts of society. Now, a significant number of employees and job applicants have tattoos and, increasingly, it is a matter that must be dealt with as part of the job application process.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tattoos Gain Even More Visibility - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.subject
Tattoos Gain Even More Visibility - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The design Ms. Dembrow chose was a fanciful vine with no real botanical basis; its burgundy colored tendrils twine around her face and down her neck. "For me it's just very decorative, like a permanent necklace," she explained.

The effect of the neck tattoo is lovely, if startling. "I have definitely had parents that were taken aback or freaked out about what I look like," Ms. Dembrow said. "And I have had conversations with the girls where I tell them that it absolutely limits your options and that I'm lucky to have a job where it isn't an issue."

Who can say, she added, what would happen if she were thrust back into the work force? "Would I be forced to sell punk rock T-shirts in some horrible shop on St. Marks Place?" she said.

She might. While there is ample evidence of tattooing's migration from the backwaters of alternative culture into the mainstream (or at least onto some part of David Beckham's body), we are still a long way from seeing facial tattoos on the selling floor at Bloomingdale's or the trading floor of the stock exchange.

In case after case, the courts have found on-the-job appearance requirements - including policies forbidding tattoos and body modifications - to be nondiscriminatory.

Among the better publicized cases was that of Kimberly Cloutier, a Massachusetts woman who sued for the right to wear her 11 earrings and eyebrow piercings while at work as a Costco cashier. Claiming membership in the Church of Body Modifications, Ms. Cloutier argued her piercings were a form of religious expression. Although she ultimately lost, her case was soon followed by others in Massachusetts and in Washington State.

"There is a lot of employee activism," said Laurel A. Van Buskirk, a New Hampshire lawyer who has written extensively about body modification and the law. "And because the cost of defending these cases is quite big, it makes employers a little uncomfortable when they start delving into that sphere."

One result of "employee pushback," Ms. Van Buskirk said, is that the shape of that sphere has begun to shift. Defining what the courts in the Cloutier case called a "neat, clean and professional" workplace image becomes more challenging when you consider that in 2006, a Pew Research Center survey found that 36 percent of people age 18 to 25, and 40 percent of those age 26 to 40, have at least one tattoo.

"Popular culture has had a huge effect" on acceptance of tattoos in the workplace, said Alexis Handelman, the owner of Alexis Baking Company, a cafe in Napa, Calif., whose clientele ranges from "banker people to hipster people to gazillionaire people."

"Watching a show like 'Project Runway,' where the guy who won Season 3 had his son's name tattooed on his neck," Ms. Handelman added, referring to Jeffrey Sebelia, "I was, like, 'Whoa.' It wasn't a prison tattoo. It wasn't sailors or criminals. It was this real-life person that you saw being creative and successful, and it really affected your perception about who gets tattooed."

Ms. Handelman found those perceptions tested last summer when Jay Sizemore applied for a job. "He's all tatted up," Ms. Handelman said of the 18-year-old artist. "He had these two cheek piercings, tattooed elbows, a tattoo on the inside of his mouth and nickel-sized rings in his ears."

Leery that customers would find Mr. Sizemore's appearance "hostile or too in-your-face," she hired him nevertheless and found that the reaction "has been a big nothing," she said.

Likewise in the case of the fashion model Freja Beha, who recently had the word "float" inscribed in cursive on her neck, a visible tattoo had little affect on her ability to earn a living, said Ivan Bart, the senior vice president of IMG Models, which represents her.

Nor do the rings she has tattooed on one of her hands. In great demand as a catwalk model for American and European runway shows this season, Ms. Beha is also featured in advertising campaigns for Emporio Armani, Gucci and Gap.

"I myself don't really care for tattoos," Mr. Bart said. "I prefer the human body in its unadorned state." But, in business terms, Ms. Beha's tattoo is irrelevant, he said. "I don't think I've had anybody say, no, we won't use her. And anybody doing a print campaign, they just airbrush it out."

A gig as a barista or a model is not a job at Morgan Stanley (although neither is a job at Morgan Stanley, anymore). The day when most businesses are blasé about visible tattoos on employees seems a ways off. But then, it is only relatively recently that tattoo artists were comfortable inking neck and hands.

"In the old days tattooists wouldn't do it," said Bob Baxter, the editor of the tattoo journal Skin & Ink. "There are 528 shops in New York and maybe 10 won't do it now."

Necks and hands, said Joshua Lord, an owner of East Side Ink on Manhattan's Lower East Side, were the last taboo. Now it is common for customers to seek them, he said. "Before it was people in industries that are forgiving," he said, meaning principally music or art. "But recently I've done them for doctors and funeral directors and teachers, and a lot of hairdressers," who use hand tattoos as conversation starters, he said.

In earlier times, the only people who wore neck and hand tattoos - besides folks seeking to advertise outlaw affiliation - were those who had run out of space elsewhere on their bodies.

In fact, Mr. Baxter said "there is resentment" among old-timers of the recent trend to get hands and necks done before having experienced the cost and discomfort of inking the rest of the body. And there is also a sense, familiar to those in subcultures that get drafted into the mainstream, that it is becoming harder to set oneself apart.

"The tattoo community sees them as posers," Mr. Baxter said of the newly inked people. "It's like going out in the 1960s to buy a Beatles wig."

But Beatles wigs came off easily and tattoos do not. "It's 20 times more painful to get it removed than to get it," Mr. Baxter said. Part of that pain must surely be the mortification of having stamped oneself with an outdated motif.

"There's no question" that more people have begun to tattoo themselves in more visible areas in the last two years, said Dr. Roy G. Geronemus, the director of the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York. "We've also seen an increase in the number of people coming in to have the cosmetic and decorative tattoos removed," he added, and for reasons that will come as no surprise.

"A certain number of people, when they become new parents, find they underestimated the image they want to project. The tattoo no longer fits the image of the establishment."

It is possible, though, that the establishment is also easing up somewhat on its image requirements. "I have a doctorate, but I also have dreadlocks and visible tattoos on both arms," said Robin Turnbow, a pediatric physical therapist in Manhattan. "Sometimes, when I go to do an evaluation of a kid on Park Avenue, I get stopped by the doorman and the concierge before they'll even call up. But then a lot of times they see me and they say, 'Wow, I can't believe it! How great! You're the PT!' "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The design Ms. Dembrow chose was a fanciful vine with no real botanical basis; its burgundy colored tendrils twine around her face and down her neck. "For me it's just very decorative, like a permanent necklace," she explained. The effect of the neck tattoo is lovely, if startling.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tattoos in the workplace? [Inquiring Minds] - The Creative Coast

# data[].attributes.subject
Tattoos in the workplace? [Inquiring Minds] - The Creative Coast

# data[].attributes.headline
Arizona Supreme Court Says Tattoos Are Free Speech - Law Blog - WSJ

# data[].attributes.subject
Arizona Supreme Court Says Tattoos Are Free Speech - Law Blog - WSJ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You have the right to get ink, according to the Arizona Supreme Court, which said in a recent opinion that tattoos are a form of protected speech.

The Arizona Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on Friday that put tattoos under the umbrella of the First Amendment but stopped short of forcing Mesa, Ariz., City Council to allow tattoo artists to open a parlor, the Arizona Republic reported.

The case will go to the Maricopa County Superior Court, where the tattoo artists' First Amendment rights will be measured against the city's authority to regulate businesses that are engaged in constitutionally protected speech.

The superior court previously dismissed the plaintiffs' suit as a matter of law - a decision the state Supreme Court held was in error. But the decision doesn't necessarily mean the plaintiffs will be allowed to open a tattoo parlor; it just means the lower court was wrong to dismiss their suit.

Still, the decision that tattoos are protected speech is significant.

"Tattoo artists are often subjected to enormous regulation, especially in terms of operating their businesses," Clint Bolick, the plaintiffs' attorney, told Reuters. "As a result, we now know that in Arizona, tattoo artists will be able to ply their trade free from excessive regulation."

The Arizona Supreme Court cited Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach - a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held that a tattoo itself is pure speech and that the process of tattooing is expressive activity.

City Attorney Debbie Spinner said that the Mesa officials were disappointed by the ruling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arizona Supreme Court Says Tattoos Are Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You have the right to get ink, according to the Arizona Supreme Court, which said in a recent opinion that tattoos are a form of protected speech. The Arizona Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on Friday that put tattoos under the umbrella of the First Amendment but stopped short of forcing Mesa, Ariz., City Council to allow tattoo artists to open a parlor, the Arizona Republic reported.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Speech Principles (July 2013 School Leader Update) | Iowa Department of Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Speech Principles (July 2013 School Leader Update) | Iowa Department of Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After an election there is always is a period of reflection on both sides. In recent weeks we have heard stories about students protesting the election. We have also heard stories of students intimidating other students because of national origin, political, religious, ethnic, and ideological or other views. If we look at our Constitution, we understand that the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... ." This right is no less important than the right to vote. The Fourteenth Amendment extends this right to state governments, of which school systems are a part. However, the right to free speech is not without its limits and although we value free speech, we cannot lose sight of what those limits are.

Here are the top three "free speech" cases relating to students and their free speech rights, chronological order.

1. "First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733 (1969). Absent either impingement on the rights of others or the likelihood of a substantial and material disruption at school, school officials may not regulate student speech at school. Id. However, school officials may regulate student speech is if the student speech impinges upon the rights of other students. Id.

2. Lewd, indecent, objectively offensive speech by students may be regulated by school officials. Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 106 S.Ct. 3159 (1986). Thus, students can be disciplined for this offensive speech.

3. School officials may regulate speech that appears to promote illegal or harmful activity. Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007). In this case the activity was illegal drug use.

Another important free speech case to note is Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kulmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S.Ct. 562 (1988). In Hazelwood the United States Supreme Court ruled that school officials may regulate content of articles in school newspaper as school-sponsored expressive activity. However, in Iowa shortly after Hazelwood was decided, the Iowa Legislature enacted Iowa Code section 280.22, which expressly provides for student exercise of free expression and gives public school students in Iowa the right to exercise freedom of speech, including the right of expression in official school publications, as long as the students do not express, publish, or distribute any of the following:

1. Materials which are obscene.

2. Materials which are libelous or slanderous under chapter 659.

3. Materials which encourage students to do any of the following:

(1) Commit unlawful acts.
(2) Violate lawful school regulations.
(3) Cause the material and substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school.

Developments in student free speech

1. Gang symbols - Many states, including Iowa, have statutes authorizing school districts to adopt policies that prohibit the wearing of gang-related apparel or symbols. Such policies are not immune to successful court challenge, however. For example, in Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997), an honor roll student successfully sued her district when she was told to remove a small cross tattoo from her hand on penalty of suspension with a recommendation for expulsion. The student showed that her body art preceded the district's ban on the same by two years, and that it was not indicative of any gang affiliation. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in the student's favor came down to a determination that the district's policy was void for vagueness.

2. "Cohen's jacket" - While the case of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) is not a school case (indeed, it is a criminal appeal), it has given rise to the oft-used expression (used by Justice Burger in the Fraser case) that students have the right to "wear Tinker's armband, but not Cohen's jacket."
Paul Cohen, while walking through the halls of the Los Angeles County Courthouse, wore a jacket bearing the plainly visible words "F--- the Draft." Cohen was convicted of "maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace ... by offensive conduct." The contrast of "Cohen's jacket" against "Tinker's armband" is not unflawed. However, the expression does offer a useful example of where public schools may draw the line regarding student expressive speech. Cohen's jacket also presents a good example of "fighting words," that is, speech (including symbolic speech) designed to provoke and disturb others to an extreme.

3. See, e.g., Iowa Code § 279.58: "... The board of directors of a school district may adopt, for the district or for an individual school within the district, a dress code policy that prohibits students from wearing gang-related or other specific apparel if the board determines that the policy is necessary for the health, safety, or positive educational environment of students and staff in the school environment or for the appropriate discipline and operation of the school."
Amy Stephenson chose to undergo presumably painful removal of the tattoo so as not to miss any class time.
Justice Harlan, writing for the majority (Cohen was a 6-3 decision), took pains to note that Cohen removed his jacket and folded it over his arm before he entered a courtroom (traffic court) in the building.

4. Free speech vs. harassment - Recall that one exception in Tinker whereby school officials may regulate student speech is if the student speech impinges upon the rights of other students. Therein lies the tension at the heart of those T-shirts adorned with "demeaning slogans, phrases or aphorisms relating to a core characteristic of particularly vulnerable students...that may cause them significant injury." Harper v. Poway Unified School Dist., No. 04-1103 (S.D. Cal. 2/11/08).
The Harper court allowed the school district to ban the Harper children's T-shirts, which communicate negative messages toward homosexuality. The front of one shirt read, "I WILL NOT ACCEPT WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED." The front of the second shirt read, "BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED." The backs of both shirts read, "HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL, Romans 1:27." On remand from the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit later found the issue was moot because the students were no longer students and qualified immunity applied to protect from liability those school officials sued in their individual capacities. The Court dismissed the case.Harper v. Poway Unified School Dist., 318 Fed.Appx. 540 (9th Cir. 2009).

In contrast, a different court ruled that a school district must allow a high school student to wear a T-shirt bearing the message "Be Happy, Not Gay." Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie School Dist. #204, No. 08-1050 (7th Cir. 4/23/08).
These two cases were decided on different facts which may have impacted the courts analysis in each cases.
School districts must review each situation on a case-by-case basis before making a determination. These cases also demonstrate that balancing rights of free speech of students with protecting other students from offensive comments is tricky business. There are no "one size fits all" solutions.

Remember, care should be taken to address the concerns of every student that brings a concern forward. Administrators have the tough job of balancing the free speech rights of students and protecting students from harm. Students learning about the responsibilities of being part of a democracy and understanding their constitutional rights is a core tenet of the work educators do in schools. I know you are doing your best to continue to balance these rights and you will continue to preserve them for all of your students.
Here is Anti-Bullying and Harassment Information and Bullying and Harassment Resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free Speech Principles (December 2016 School Leader Update)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After an election there is always is a period of reflection on both sides. In recent weeks we have heard stories about students protesting the election. We have also heard stories of students intimidating other students because of national origin, political, religious, ethnic, and ideological or other views.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tattoos and piercings should be respected in the work place | The Sundial

# data[].attributes.subject
Tattoos and piercings should be respected in the work place | The Sundial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sorry Baby Boomers, but your distaste for tattoos has no real effect on Generation Y's love and obsession with them.

Sure, you're still the head honchos at major corporations and you're still writing the dress code policies for most places that we work or will be working for after graduation, but don't worry, we aren't trying to offend you with our tattoos; they're just another way for us to express ourselves.

By the way, not all of us are delinquents. You probably won't even know that we have tattoos unless you ask. In a 2007 Vault poll, about 40 percent of Generation Y admitted to having at least one tattoo. Many of us, however, hide our tattoos in the workplace as courtesy to employers and in compliance to company dress code policies.
Many companies - whether they are conservative or liberal - have policies that do not allow visible tattoos or piercings because they can be unprofessional and hurt the image of the company. That's the stereotype, at least.

I have four tattoos that are on the small side - two that are visible in my work uniform as a server. My grandfather, of course, is offended when he sees the small heart tattoo on my wrist or swirly sunshine behind my ear, and he likes to lecture me on my future inability to get a job. Experience seems to disagree with him.

Employees with tattoos should work to be discreet with their tattoos, and conversations between management and employees should take place. As a server, I wear bracelets to cover my tattoos out of courtesy to the guests, although many comment on how cute they are. I'm sure their reactions would be different if I had a curse word or a skeleton holding a bloody knife on my wrist. In an office setting, I have also avoided chastisement because of my tattoos.

I believe my managers at the restaurant are more concerned with my image because I am interacting with customers of all ages on a daily basis and their visibility may not be because many people may find them offensive.

The best advice I could probably give comes from my aunt who is a middle school librarian. At the age of 18, she got a tattoo of a pin-up girl on her bicep. At the time, she had no idea she would one day be working with children and, to abide by company policy, would have to wear three-quarter sleeve or long-sleeve shirts everyday. Since I was little, she told me: "Make sure to think about a future career and tattoo placement before you get your tattoo."

Now, employers can't exactly tell us that our tattoos are offensive, nor can they fire us or refrain from hiring us because of our tattoos - that is illegal. However, dress codes are legal and companies have learned to be very careful with their wording. They have chosen to stick to blanket statements like "no visible tattoos," because what may not be offensive to one person may be to the next.

Like the way George Carlin's "Seven Words That Can't Be Said On Television" are becoming more acceptable, tattoos are also becoming more acceptable as executives are getting younger and may even have tattoos themselves. People with tattoos were once considered hoodlums - in the words of my grandfather and Baby Boomers everywhere - but what once was considered offensive is changing.
Tattoos should now be the least of our worries in regard to what is offensive and appropriate for the workplace.

The worth of an employee is not contingent on their appearance or body image. Some of the best workers may be covered in tattoos underneath their suits. Others may even have the dreaded drunken mistake tattoo. Having ink embed my skin in a design of my choosing does not alter my ability to be productive, charismatic or respectful.
Tattoos in the workplace are about respect and, as a person raised by parents without tattoos but open to the idea of them, I was taught how to be respectful with my tattoos. So if you are inked up or pierced, you should still make an effort to respect your potential employer.

First, when interviewing, cover up tattoos and remove facial piercings. This will show your respect for the employer - even if they can see that I have a hole in either side of my nostrils, they appreciate the fact that I chose to remove them. Once hired, inquire about tattoo policies and have a conversation with management about your tattoos. Respect the employer's policy, instead of attempting to change it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tattoos and piercings should be respected in the work place

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sorry Baby Boomers, but your distaste for tattoos has no real effect on Generation Y's love and obsession with them. Sure, you're still the head honchos at major corporations and you're still writing the dress code policies for most places that we work or will be working for after graduation, but don't worry, we aren't trying to offend you with our tattoos; they're just another way for us to express ourselves.