Friday, September 23, 2005

Tattoos and Religion

Do you think it is okay for an employer to refuse to hire applicants with visible tattoos because the employer wants to promote a wholesome image?  Think again . . . .

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., whose former CFO stated that the restaurant chain seeks out “that all-American kid from the suburbs” for its server positions, has (maybe I’d better make that “had”) a dress code policy for servers that prohibited visible tattoos.  Understand—the policy did not prohibit having tattoos, but did require that the server conceal them with clothing while at work.

Edward Rangel, a server in a Bellevue, Washington Red Robin, requested an exception to the dress code.  According to Mr. Rangel, he is a follower of the Kemetic Orthodoxy religion, a modern practice of ancient Egyptian traditions, founded in the late 1980s.  Mr. Rangel asserted that he believes it would be a sin for him to conceal the religious inscriptions that encircle his wrist (in the form of tattoos.) Red Robin declined to allow an exception to its dress code, and terminated Mr. Rangel’s employment when he refused to wear clothing that would conceal his tattoos.

The EEOC filed suit against Red Robin for religious discrimination.  The Court held that Red Robin had to support its defense that the dress code exception would create an undue hardship on its business with more than hypothetical hardships based on unproven assumptions.  In other words, the Court rejected Red Robin’s “wholesome image” argument without concrete evidence that the dress code exception would hurt its business.  After that ruling, Red Robin agreed to settle the lawsuit by paying Mr. Rangel $150,000 and changing its policies to allow for accommodation of religion.

So if you are served by someone with tattoos, do not assign responsibility (either blame or credit—depending on your perspective) to the employer.  Instead, you can thank Mr. Rangel, the EEOC and a federal district judge in the Western District of Washington.

I wonder when the First Church of the Harley-Davidson will be founded . . . .

Heavy workers, hefty price

It should come as no surprise that it costs more to employ obese people.  As reported here:

The average medical expenditure for a normal-weight man is $1,351 a year. Men who are 30 to 60 pounds overweight cost $462 more based on added medical costs and absenteeism. Extremely obese men cost $2,027 a year more.

Average medical expenditures for normal-weight women are $1,956. Women who are 30 to 60 pounds overweight cost $1,372 more when medical costs and missed work are included. Women who weigh 60 to 100 pounds too much cost $2,485 more.

My question is whether corporate wellness programs actually work?  The economist quoted in the above article doesn’t seem to think so, at least not for the morbidly obese employees.  Irrespective of disability discrimination issues (some obese employees may suffer from conditions protected by the ADA or State FEP laws), it certainly would be a bad employee relations tactic to just fire all of your fat employees.  Are there any practical suggestions on how employers are successfully handling this issue?