Workplace Discrimination Based On Augmented Appearance
Katrina Christopherson
Business Law and Ethics
Teri Ford-Dwyer
April 1, 2015
An amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, makes it unlawful for any employer that has more than fifteen employees to discriminate against the employee based on religion, race, sex, color or national origin (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines discrimination as the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people. Even though laws have changed and employers are treating employees more fairly, there still is a vast …show more content…
There are certain religious groups that require members to augment their appearance. The Church of Body Modification (CBM) is an example of a religious group that practices ancient and modern body modification arts. They believe that tattoos and piercings are essential to their spirituality and strengthens the bond between mind, body and soul. They believe that body modification ensures that they are spiritually complete and healthy individuals (United States Church of Body Modification). Therefore, tattoos or piercings can raise both discrimination and constitutional issues. Religious discrimination can be brought against someone who has certain religious observances and practices, as well as religious beliefs. The employer can be accountable for discrimination unless the employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business …show more content…
“Mission Statement”. 2015.www.uscobm.com. Web. 20 March 2015.
Commission, United States Equal Employment Opportunity. "Religiou Garb and Grooming in the Workplace." 2014. www.eeoc.gov. Web. 22 March 2015.
Harris Polls. www.harrisinteractive.com. 16-23 January 2012. Web. 22 March 2015. <www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articeld/970/ctl/ReadCustomDefault/Default.aspx>.
Kramer, Ronald J. “Recent Developments in Government Operations And Liability Generation Y: Tattoos, Piercing, And Other Issues For The Private And Public Employer.” Urban Lawyer 38.3 (2006): 593-611. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 March. 2015
Lee Hartwell v. The City of Montgomery, Alabama, Personnel Board of the City and County of Montgomery, Alabama, and District Chief Kelly D. Gordon, in his individual capacity. No. 2:06cv518-MHT. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division. 10 May 2007. Web. 28 January 2015.
Support Tattoos And Piercings At Work. www.stapaw.com/#!tattoo-in-the-worklace-statistics/c1490. March 2015. Web. 21 March