Commenting on employers’ reactions to tattoos, following the presentation of research to the British Sociological Association, Ann Oliver, Senior Associate at Charles Russell LLP, comments.

To a large extent, employers are free to set a dress-code that they consider appropriate for their business and for some employers this may include reference to tattoos and body art. Employers need to ensure that any such policy is enforced consistently to seek to avoid claims of discrimination. For example, an individual may claim that their tattoo/body art – including temporary work such as henna – relates to their religion or beliefs. If a clear, universally applied policy exists, such a claim is going to be difficult to succeed with. However, such complaints should always be dealt with on their facts and with sensitivity. It is also important that both male and female employees are treated in the same way, including in relation to tattoos. “It is worth mentioning that tattoos and body piercings are expressly stated not to be impairments (and cannot therefore be disabilities) for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. “Each person’s body art will be different, meaning a fixed policy is difficult. However, the company should form a view as to what it generally considers acceptable. For example, would a single tattoo on an arm be acceptable, where an entire ‘sleeve’ might not? Consideration should also be given as to how the company may wish such body art to be concealed or covered up and whether the employee’s specific role should be taken into account (for example, is the role customer-facing?). A sensible approach would be to limit the policy provisions to visible tattoos.

“It is important that all employees are made aware of the policy terms and that they are set out as clearly as possible. In addition, specific training should be given to those who will be required to enforce the policy, including how to deal sensitively with the issue. Body art is very personal and individuals may not take kindly to what they may perceive as criticism or an attempt to repress their personality.”