Starbucks allows visible tattoos; who's next?

Coffee giant Starbucks recently announced a major change to its dress and appearance policy, allowing baristas to visibly display tattoos for the first time in its 44-year history. The company decided that the interests of employee retention and satisfaction outweighed its strict prior policy, which had required clean-cut and uniform appearance among all of its employees. This decision continues a trend across the country where more retail and food establishments are relaxing their personal appearance standards for their employees; the question is: will your company be next? This past August, Starbucks barista Kristie Williams started a Coworker.org petition to change the company's policy prohibiting any kind of tattoo whatsoever from showing to customers. Besides stifling individual expression, she and other baristas complained that having to wear long sleeves to cover tattoos was outdated and uncomfortable (imagine sporting long sleeves while making piping hot coffee drinks in the summer). The petition was very popular and over 25,000 people signed up to voice their opinion and support the suggestion. The corporate office heard their message loud and clear; in fact, it announced that it had long been considering changes to the policy even before the petition was started, but obviously the petition provided validation. "We want to build a company where self-expression, empowerment and inclusion are nurtured," Chief Operating Officer Troy Alstead said in announcing the change. So, what exactly will change? Starbucks' policy now says: "Tattoos are allowed, but not on your face or throat. Treat tattoos as you treat speech you can't swear, make hateful comments or lewd jokes in the workplace; neither can your tattoos." The policy also relaxed piercing standards, allowing two piercings per ear (small or moderate size), a small nose stud (no rings), and small ear gauges (no more than 10 mm). However, still prohibited at Starbucks are: other visible pierced jewelry (such as eyebrow piercings), bright or unnaturally colored hair (purple, pink, blue or green), nail polish of any color, and rings with stones in them. These requirements are designed to protect the Starbucks brand, present a neat and attractive appearance among workers, and minimize food-safety concerns. While this policy is being celebrated by countless baristas who now will be able to show off their arm-sleeve tats with impunity, some people might complain that the policy doesn't go far enough. "I should be able to have my tattoos say whatever I want, or get them on my neck or face too that's a violation of the First Amendment!" (Legal tip: whenever someone includes the "First Amendment" argument in their protest, assume that they don't know what they are talking about.) In fact, private employers are allowed to set whatever dress, grooming and appearance standards that they want. Employees at these companies have no First Amendment rights at work, and their employers can dictate how they want their employees to look and what they can say (and what their body art says). Just as it was completely permissible for Starbucks to prohibit their baristas from displaying any tattoos at all, it is certainly permissible for the company to prohibit distasteful tattoos or body art on the face or neck. There are really just two rules that employers need to follow when setting appearance standards to stay on the right side of the law: they must apply them uniformly to all employees or run the risk of a discrimination claim (with natural variances allowable between the genders, such as short hair required for men, longer hair allowed for women), and they must allow accommodations for religious reasons (think: required head scarves, ashes on Ash Wednesday, Jewish sidelocks). When it comes to tattoos, an employee can't successfully argue that his tattoo needs to be displayed under the law just because it is a religious symbol such as a cross or a Muslim crescent moon; instead, the only time that a tattoo would be required to be accommodated is when the covering of a tattoo itself would be a violation of a certain religious belief. The EEOC cites to an ancient Egyptian faith, the Kemetic religion, which calls for the worship of the sun god Ra and requires its adherents to get a small tattoo encircling the wrist written in the Coptic language; under this faith, covering the tattoo would be rejection of Ra and thus be considered a sin. Therefore, EEOC guidance states that any company that employs workers practicing the Kemetic religion needs to accommodate workers by allowing the display of their tattoos, regardless of company policy. However, unless you have true sun-worshipers in your workforce (and not just those who like to soak up rays on vacation), you probably can prohibit any and all tattoos in your policy. But do you want to? Starbucks is just the latest large, national employer that now allows tattoos. PetSmart recently started allowing employees to show off their tattoos at work, joining the ranks of Peet's Coffee & Tea, Walgreens, Target, Home Depot, IKEA, Trader Joe's, Dunkin Donuts, and dozens of other retail and food chains (plus local and regional employers, which generally have much more relaxed rules). One of the primary reasons a company would want to be a little more flexible in this regard is because of retention. If a worker could accept another job down the street because he or she could show off tattoos there, a company might not get the best applicants or start losing employees and the cost of turnover is high. While it might not seem like a big deal to you, it is important to remember that the new generation considers individual expression as a high priority. How Millennials project their own style through clothing, tattoos, piercings and hairstyles is critical to their satisfaction, and a company that wants to attract and retain the best workers may want to consider revising its policy to match the one now used by Starbucks - and countless other employers. Published: Wed, Feb 11, 2015