Are anti-piercing (like a nose ring) rules by employer sueable?

Question

I suppose employers can enforce dress codes, but they also can't obviously discriminate against people who have piercings or tattoos. So, what's the line here? If an employer requests an employee to remove his/her nose ring in order to be offered the job, is that sueable?

Answer 1

... they also can't obviously discriminate against people who have piercings or tattoos ...

Why not?

See Is an "unmarried with no dependents" employer or higher education requirement discrimination?

Discrimination is only illegal where the grounds for discrimination are proscribed. AFAIK "having piercings or tattoos" is not a protected class anywhere in the world.

If the piercings or tattoos are religious or cultural, then discrimination may be illegal, but is they are simply fashion choices then, no.

An employee must follow the lawful and reasonable directions and that may include directions about body area and modification. Reasonable depends on the nature of the job and the workplace. For an example, this is the policy of the NSW Police Force; they are presumably well-aware of the law.

Answer 2

Depends on where you are in the world.

In germany, piercings at work may be banned for reasons of employee safety (getting caught in machines, wearing protective equipment), for reasons of hygiene, and in some cases for reasons of "professional" appearance. The employer would have to explain why a piercing is problematic, and the employee may challenge that explanation in court. The lawsuit may fail if the explanation is reasonable.

Answer 3

united-states

The analysis is rather simple: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination on the following classes: race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and religion.

Tattoos and piercings, or body art in general, are only rarely an indicator of any of those characteristics:

• Due to history, a number tattooed onto the lower arm will always be connected to Holocaust Survivors and thus mostly to Jewish people. Discriminating for such a tattoo on an actual survivor would most likely be discrimination based on religion or at least national origin.
• Tribal Polynesian tattoos, including the prominent geometric face tattoos are for many of the indigenous people part of their heritage. Discrimination against a Polynesian person for such a tattoo might be unlawful on the basis of race, nationality and religion - often these tattoos have some religious significance.
• Similarly a person might even successfully argue that other traditional body art, such as scarring, is an ingrained part of their race or national origin.

Answer 4

germany

There is no easy solution here. Two things conflict. One is the right to "free development of personality" which is part of the basic law (some would say constitution) of Germany. This is Article 2 Paragraph 1 of the "Grundgesetz". On the other hand, the employer can regulate how their employees look and what picture the present to the outside, like customers during work hours. So for example it is perfectly legal to require a uniform, but also to require a specific style. And then, obviously, there are concerns of safety. Having long hair bundled up so it does not end up in machinery, having short, neat unpainted nails for sports trainers or nurses might even be mandated.

So many times, individual cases have had their day in court, because there is no one simple way to decide. The same requirement in one place of work might be discriminatory, in another perfectly normal, and in yet another even mandated by law.

Some guidelines that normally come into play:

• The employer cannot discriminate based on things the public cannot see. The employers power to order a specific image of their company being transported ends exactly at "image". So for example, a tattoo or piercing that nobody can see during work hours cannot be a reason for discrimination. They can on the other hand discriminate by tattoo. A tattoo of bloody skull and crossbones on the forehead with the motto "kill them all" might be appropriate for a pirate themed theme park actor, or a metal band member, but not for a kindergarden nurse.

• The law, mandating basic safety rules, cannot discriminate based on image. If a nosering is considered dangerous for job with physical activity, it does not matter if it is in the form of an evil chainsaw killer, or the form of a happy puppy. It's either dangerous or not.

• If you can hide it during work, be taking it of or hiding it under clothing or any other means, the employer cannot discriminate against you. And if you can remove it or make it less dangerous, for example by wrapping it in tape while you train, safety laws allow this. Discriminating someone because the have a tattoo or piercing, even though they take it off/remove it from the public eye/mitigate the danger during work is illegal.

The most iconic and most visible job where these two laws frequently conflict is police. In Germany police cannot have visible tattoos. And while this rule is from a time when only sailors and criminals had tattoos, even when people nowadays sue, it is still a matter of the specific tattoo and whether it is visible. Courts have to decide if a tattoo looks neutral enough for a representative whose job it is to be neutral, and whether or not it is to be considered visible in a police uniform.

The last case I remember was a person with a tiger head as a tattoo on his forearm. Is that visible? I guess, if the uniform officially includes a short sleeved shirt for the summer. Is it non-neutral? I wouldn't know what it stands for, and personally don't care. But to be honest I have no idea which direction that case went, either direction would be possible and not surprising to any German.