Uncovering Gainley’s Faulty Judgment In “Judging by the Cover” author Bonnie Gainley argues that employers have the right to discriminate against job applicants who have chosen to decorate their bodies in ways that, in the employers’ estimation, may detract from the applicants’ job performance. She supports this claim by explaining two major points: First, employers have an obligation to hire workers who will favorably “represent the business to its customers” (667), and second, job applicants with potentially offensive decorations, such as tattoos and piercings, have freely chosen to place them on their bodies, so the applicants must take responsibility for the consequences. Gainley’s argument has considerable “common sense” appeal …show more content…
She writes, for example, that “parents don’t want pre-school teachers waving visible skull or profanity tattoos in front of their small children” (666) and mentions “people who choose to wear rings through their noses” (667). Such examples evoke the rash choices of young people eager to test the tolerance of established authority figures or the habits of gang members to mark themselves in ways designed to intimidate. These convenient examples fit easily into Gainley’s argument. They suggest that when employers discriminate against applicants on the basis of body accoutrements or dress, the victims are predominantly irresponsible or disaffected provocateurs who “get what they …show more content…
When employers discriminate against job applicants wearing any of these expressions of religious identity, they are discriminating against the individual’s freedom of religious expression. As Harold Goldner points out, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 indicates that the employer “must accommodate its employees’ religious beliefs so long as the accommodation will not cause an undue hardship on the employer.” There is certainly room for debate in regard to what constitutes an “undue hardship.” Goldner tells of a 1999 court case in New Jersey in which two police officers successfully challenged an officers’ dress code that would have prevented them from wearing beards in accordance with their Muslim beliefs. The plaintiffs made the case that their religious obligation to wear beards posed no “undue hardship” for the police department
A controversial topic today is whether or not body piercings and tattoos should be accepted by professionals working in health care. Currently, tattoos and piercings are allowed in health care as long as they are not visible. According to one of the studies, “Body piercing is defined as a piercing of the body anywhere other than the earlobes” (Westerfield). Therefore, the only visible piercings allowed are small studs in the lobes of the ears for females. The reason body piercings and tattoos are not suggested in health care is that they keep someone from looking professional as well as making them look intimidating. Not everyone sees them that way. The opposing side is that they do not affect
Today’s job seeker has tough competition. In the textbook reading “Judging by the Cover” by Bonny Gainley, she argues that job seekers ought to be careful when they make personal choices that initially will affect their chances of entering the workplace. People have a need to be accepted by others just the way they are, but many of us were taught as adolescence that we should not judge a book by its cover, yet people judge others solely on their personal appearances. That goes for businesses as well, “[t]he bottom line is that businesses exist to make money. Whether it seems fair or not, generally employers do care about the personal appearances of the people they hire because those people represent the business to its customers” (5). Maybe
In today’s job market, there are many reasons an individual could be turned down for employment. According to Deborah Rhodes, author of “Why looks are the last bastion of discrimination”, appearance should not be one of them. Rhodes is a law professor at Stanford and holder of numerous titles for her outstanding work in legal matters. She is also the author and co-author of over 250 articles (Directory). In this article, she addresses an issue with profound impact on today’s society. She proposes that appearance discrimination should be included in anti-discrimination laws in addition to what is already accepted and legalized in today’s workplace. While it is a seemingly “silly” concern, it is actually quite valid. There has been many a concern over discrimination. That is, discrimination based on race, color, gender, and others of a similar nature in the work environment.
Facts of the Case: In 2008, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., who as part of their “Look Policy” prohibit the use of caps. Elauf, as part of her religious practice, wore a headscarf to the interview. She was interviewed by assistant manager Heather Cooke, who gave her a score that qualified her to be hired. Cooke, however, was worried that Elauf’s headscarf was against the store’s policy and called her district manager Randall Johnson. She informed Johnson of her belief that Elauf wore her headscarf because of her religion, and Johnson replied that headwear, whether it was religious or not, violated the “Look Policy” of the store.
...siderably. From a mark of criminality to an embraced art form, the body modification has represented various expressions of the bearer’s inner self. However, despite the efforts to normalize tattoos in the society, the social stigma of deviance perceived by the larger society still remains deeply etched in the art. It is apparent that the intended message a bearer wants to communicate through a tattoo may not be perceived correctly by others. These motivations behind tattoos are filtered through cultural and historical lenses that often result in unintended perceptions of tattooed bodies. In addition, the attempts of using tattoos to change social conditions often reinforce the very conditions they seek to counter. Though these stigmas and misinterpretations see no sign of fading, tattooing will remain as a powerful vehicle of self-expression and social commentary.
Instead, the company stated that she should not win a religious freedom complaint because she never said in the interview that she was wearing the head scarf for religious reasons. However, in an 8-1 decision in the important religious rights case, the court favored Samantha Elauf. Particularly, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a company held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant based on a religious observance or practice if the employer did not have direct knowledge that a religious accommodation was required. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 78 Stat. 253, it is unlawful for an employer: “(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national
I found an interesting article that explain more as to how they have a double edged sword. “ Under the laws enforced by the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal to discriminate against a potential employee because of that person’s race, color, religion, age, or disabilities. However, there are slight nuances to these rules. For example, under the same laws an employer can require all workers to follow a uniform dress code, even if it conflicts with some workers ethnic or religious practices, as long as the dress code is not treating specific employees less favorably than others because of their practices” (Daly). So A&F can say that none of its employees are to wear any type of head coverings however they cannot apply this rule to an employee, or potential employee like Samantha for wearing her hijabs. While it is extremely insensitive and shallow it really isn’t
Attractiveness and intelligence are important factors of hireability; recent studies show that facial piercings can affect these traits. A team of researchers focused on how observers perceived indiv...
In today’s world there are several occupations one may choose from once receiving an education. Whether a person wants to be a doctor, a teacher, or a business person, one should be able to use their education to gain access to that job. Getting a job is no easy task, for there are many people who are also searching for that same job. Employers will interview many people just to find the right one and often times will have many stand-out applications to evaluate. When it comes down to making a decision, something as simple as having a tattoo could ruin every hope one has of getting the job. One may ask, “why does having a tattoo ruin ones chance of getting a job?” A tattoo would ruin one’s chances at getting a job simply because it is wrongly viewed as unprofessional.
In addition, discrimination by appearance is really unfair to job-seekers, who do not get hired. My brother, who is Hispanic, has many visible tattoos all over his body. Each and every one of his tattoos mean something very special to him. If someone saw my brother and his tattoos, immediately, they would think he is rebellious. He is a genuine, intelligent person,
Even though tattoos are becoming part of culture and socially acceptable, the negative and prejudiced attitudes towards those with body art are still present. Not all tattoos are gang related, and one must note that they have historically been a symbol of someone’s culture or religion. Other tattoos may have just a personal meaning to its owner and was not intended to be offensive. People also do not understand that a tattoo may impede them from pursuing a professional career, regardless of their qualifications. Employers realize that the need to recruit workers from different backgrounds are important in such a competitive workforce, so they provide accommodation by having reasonable dress code policies.
Non-conformity is skin deep is an article by David Brooks of 27th August 2006, which argues that people fail to adopt the violations that are socially acceptable such as tattoos shallowly. Brooks notes that people’s nonconformity is superficial because they adopt to some transgressions only to look powerful but still remain unchanged inside. The writer made a positive observation through this work because many people have transformed to the socially acceptable violations in the society.
Tattooing has increased widespread from all ages, careers, and social classes (Westerfield, Stafford, Speroni, & Daniel, 2012). Tattoos’ usual meaning is “to stain the skin with colorings” (Goldstein, 2007). With the growing the populations, who have tattoos and/or body piercings in the work environment, there is requiring decision about what policies to establish forward associates a professional atmosphere. Thus, there assesses patients’ perceptions of health care workers with tattoos and/or body piercing (Westerfield, Stafford, Speroni, & Daniel, 2012).
Employment discrimination legislation has evolved to include race, disabilities, sexual harassment of either gender, and age. In lieu of this evolution and an increasing trend toward equality for all individuals in the workplace, the time has come for the protective reach of employment discrimination law to cover ugliness. While the proposal may cause titters at first, evidence exists that discrimination based on looks (or physical appearance) occurs in the workplace. An investigation was conducted by ABC’s 20/20 news program in 1994 that sent two men and two women into the workplace to secure the same jobs (Sessions 1). The individuals were coached to act in a similar manner during the interviews and took with them resumes with matching education and experience. The only difference was that one of the men and one of the women was superior in physical attraction to their counterpart. The results demonstrate whether intentional or not, looks discrimination does play a role in the employment process “In five cases out of five, the more attractive woman got the job; in three chances out of three, the more attractive man was hired” (Sessions 1).
As early as the nineteenth century women were modifying their bodies with tattoos as a way to seek employment; this employment consisted mainly of circus sideshows or “freak shows.” These women were most often regarded as outcasts and rebels and were frequently scorned and ridiculed. “At that time, positive associations with tattoos were limited to upper class women; these women were recognized as brave and noble as well as beautiful” (Hawkes, Senn, and Thorn 594.) There was a resurgence of tattooing in the 1920s and again in the late 1960s and early 1970s which brought not only an increase in the number of women receiving tattoos but also in the number of female tattoo artists. Unlike their predecessors these women were not tattooing their bodies as means to gain employment but as a form of self-expression and rebellion. Yet they still met with discrimination and negative attitudes when it came to their tattoos.