IBJNews

  • Home

Man says Republic denied him interview because of tattoos

IBJ Staff
February 21, 2013
Keywords
Airlines, Law, Legal Issues, Republic Airways, Transportation, Distribution & Logistics, Workplace Issues
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A Florida man who claims Indianapolis-based Republic Airways Holdings Inc. denied him a job interview because of his tattoos can proceed with a civil rights complaint against the company, the Indiana Civil Rights Commission said Wednesday.

An investigation by the commission following a May complaint from Christopher Brooks found that he was qualified for a flight attendant job but was denied an interview by Republic because of the tattoos on his forearms.

“The issue before the commission is whether the alleging party was denied an interview based on his gender,” ICRC Deputy Director Akia Haynes said in a prepared statement. “Records show that female employees were permitted to sign a waiver indicating they would agree to conceal their tattoos.  However, the alleging party was informed he was not eligible to sign this waiver.”

Republic spokesman Peter Kowalchuk said the company doesn’t comment on matters that might involve litigation.

A finding of probable cause means the commission has concluded its preliminary investigation and determined enough evidence exists to move forward with a civil right complaint, the commission said.

Brooks, 28, of Pensacola, said his case has been assigned to an attorney with the state and that he is awaiting his options. In the meantime, he is set to begin flight attendant training in April for another airline, Brooks said.

The state’s civil rights law provides remedies to violations, including compensatory damages and injunctive relief, such as changes in the employer’s policies and training.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Dress code?
    BradFebruary 21, 2013 2:23 PM
    Perhaps the reason he wasn't offered the opportunity to cover his forearms is their dress code requires short sleeve shirts for men while women can wear long sleeves? That is not discrimatory in my opinion.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Discrimination?
    Tom GreenacresFebruary 21, 2013 2:07 PM
    The only discrimination here is that the male candidate was not offered the same coverup option as women. Rejecting a job applicant because of tattoes, piercings, or revealing clothing is not discrimination: a person can exercise their "right of expression" to have stretched earlobes and pants below their tokus, and a prospective employer can exercise their right of employment by deciding that person is not presentable in their workplace. If you write a book or screenplay and no publisher or producer wants it, this isn't censorship. It also isn't a violation of anyone's freedom of expression if you don't hire the person that doesn't fit the requirements. Which is why you don't see obese women working in Victoria's Secret.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Appearance
    HR MangerFebruary 21, 2013 1:47 PM
    I understand that the suit is discrimination. I would like to add my opinion in response to the other comments made. As an HR Manager in a hospitality environment, I do look at appearance. Tattoos are a personal choice and what they are and where they are put are also a personal choice. When people walk around with their pants below their butts that is a personal choice, when people don’t care to brush their teeth, wash their clothes, wash/comb their hair, etc. that also is a personal choice. However, everyone does not have to accept your “personal choice”. To earn respect, you have to be respectable. Apply for the position that you best fit into. I would much rather go to a business with neat, clean “normal” looking people than one with people who have 2” holes in their ears, tattoos on their arms and faces, their butt above their waistband, who choose not to shave, groom or clean themselves. Just because you choose to be that way, do not expect everyone else to choose to accept that. Don’t dress for the job you have, dress for the job you want.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Employer's Rights?!
    arFebruary 21, 2013 1:41 PM
    Shouldn't an employer be allowed to require a dress code to maintain how they appear to their clients? I hate seeing tattoos on professionals, as well as any sort of body piercing, i.e. eyebrow, nose, and toungue. It makes me question what type of establishment I'm visiting. It's sad that this will qualify as a Civil Rights case and waste alot of time and money. Choose another employer if you don't like the standards of the one your are interviewing with.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Confused
    SteveFebruary 21, 2013 1:31 PM
    I'm confused why he didn't wear long sleeves to apply in the first place.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • ink police
    scooterbumFebruary 21, 2013 11:30 AM
    I bet that if the guy would have acted gay, He would be employed now. The P.C. police would have been OK with the tats then.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Dictators
    P. K.February 21, 2013 10:48 AM
    The clothing and personal appearance Gestapo have spoken. And don't they just look so fine in their shiny black boots. Sad when other people can dictate how a free person in the U.S.A. is NOT free to his or her personal expression of beauty or very personal appearance. No I don't agree that this expression is always a look I would personally choose but this is up to the individual and as long as their adornments do not inter fear with the job they are required to do and the person is qualified to perform the duties required of them this is a violation of our right to free speech. Whats next?? no lipstick, no too pay, no bot-ox, no breast implants? And the potential list goes on and on, and when you find you are in violation of their very long list of no nos you will also feel the sting of the enforcement of rules you deem intrusive. When they click their heals and tell you that you are no longer employed just remember how you thought that discrimination against someone else was a great idea as long as it is someone else NOT you. And till then those fine store bought hooters were your pride and joy
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • the waiver is key
    SassafrasFebruary 21, 2013 10:26 AM
    Be sure to read the article in its entirety! He wasn't refused an interview simply because he had tattoos; he claims he didn't get the interview because he didn't get the waiver that females receive indicating that their tattoos must be covered. I completely understand why the airline wouldn't want his tattoos visible, so should he be subject to the same mandatory concealment as the women? Shouldn't be a problem, since men by and large are expected to show far less skin in the workplace than women.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • too bad for them!
    pjFebruary 21, 2013 9:39 AM
    They made the decision to get the tattoo's in the first place. This is not a natural deformity or disability, it was a choice. This would relate to any dress/appearance code for an employer. If the plaintiff doesn't like it, then they can have the tattoo's removed and reapply when they comply with the rules of the airline. The airline should counter-sue for the frivolous charge.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Personal
    Mrs. DarlingFebruary 21, 2013 9:09 AM
    Tattoos are a personal lifestyle decision. Something as simple to conceal as a forearm tattoo should never be a barrier to employment.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Good!
    GoodFebruary 21, 2013 8:51 AM
    Good! There need to be consequences for bad decisions. Tattoos are unprofessional, so don't be surprised when they hurt your career.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    ADVANCED SEARCH
    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ

    1. liek the rest of America

    2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

    3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

    4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

    5. whoa!

    ADVERTISEMENT