Regulating Matters of Appearance

• Published in: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 2007-02, Vol.76 (2), p.25
• Main Author: Baker, Lisa A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Law enforcement; Personal appearance; Police; Religion; Supreme Court decisions; Tattoos
• ISSN: 0014-5688; 1937-4674

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of policies concerning hair length for police officers, ruling that such policies did not violate constitutional rights of officers.1 Today, not only are hair length and style an issue but individual expression in other forms, such as tattoos and body piercings, can present similar challenges. In granting Costco's motion for summary judgment, the court initially expressed some skepticism as to whether the plaintiff's assertion regarding her facial jewelry was a "bona fide religious practice or belief as required of her to move forward with her claim of discrimination.37 Ultimately, the court decided to avoid ruling on whether this was a bona fide religion and assume it was protected under Title VII, concluding that even if the plaintiff did meet her burden of proof on this issue, Costco would still prevail.38 The court determined that by offering her the option of covering her piercings with a Band-Aid, Costco had met its burden of offering her a reasonable accommodation and Title VII did not require Costco to grant the plaintiff her preferred accommodation, a full exemption from the no-facial-jewelry policy, as this accommodation would pose an undue hardship to Costco.39 The court acknowledged that Costco had a legitimate interest in presenting a workforce to the public that was professional in appearance and further stated, "[i]t is axiomatic that, for better or for worse, employees reflect on their employers...[the plaintiff's] facial jewelry influenced Costco's public image, and, in Costco's calculation, detracted from its professionalism.