Hey guys,
If you drove past Walgreen’s in Hoxie last Saturday, you would have noticed a small, but vocal group of people picketing in front of the store. The reason for the demonstration… tattoos.
Nathan Hardisty claims that he was fired because a customer objected to his tattoos. Walgreen’s instructed Hardisty to cover his ink with either clothing or makeup, Hardisty declined to do either, and was then fired.
Does Hardisty have a right to have tattoos and display them whenever he wants? Sure he does. Does a business have to employ a person who refuses to adhere to store policy? No.
Hardisty is attempting to sue Walgreen’s on the grounds that he was hired with his tattoos showing, received great performance reviews, and thus Walgreen’s had no right to terminate him. Does he have a case? The ACLU thinks he may…
What were the offensive tattoos? Some reports claim that the tattoos display a swastika, a “SS” and other Nazi era symbols. Though there are some conflicting reports of what the tattoos actually are…
What do you think?
I think that people should have a right to keep their tattoos exposed in their workplace because it is THEIR body. Though Hardisty's tattoos may not have been the most tasteful (do not be mistaken, I am in no way condoning Nazi beliefs) his work ethic is not effected by the ink in his skin.
ReplyDelete~Sydd
If the tattoos were in fact Nazi symbols then I would argue that they were offensive and covering them should be mandatory. Besides violent or racial tattoos I believe that tattoos should be more widely acceptable being that almost everyone in my generation has one or is planning to get some "ink".Also, if his work ethic was commendable by many there shouldn't have been an excuse to fire him.
ReplyDeleteDoes he have a case?
We that depends of course on whether or whether not his tattoos were very visible National Social Service tattoos.If they were obviously something other than that I would say stand up for yourself and FIGHT THE POWER!
I have seen this guy around for a few years. He seems nice, but his tattoos look a bit questionable. I'm not accusing him of being a part of anything, but I wouldn't be surprised if people thought he was. Someone must've complained because he's had his tattoos visible before and they didn't take action until now. My only problem is that they hired him knowing he had tattoos that he couldn't cover up (like the one on his head) and they still gave him the job and now two years later, decide to fire him.
ReplyDelete-Brandon Maxwell
If Nathan was hired with his tattoos showing, then I don't think that Walgreen's had the right to fire him based off of the same basis. It all depends on his work as an employee of Walgreen's, not as his appearance. If the store had a problem with it, then they never should have offered him the position to begin with. However, although it seems like an interesting case; I can't objectively judge without knowing his efforts and successes as an employee, and the exact reasons for his termination of employment.
ReplyDelete