Tattoos in the Forensic Job World?

Since everyone seems to have them now, I don't think it matters. If you have "questionable" tattoos….possibly. But if you are at a job interview, you are most likely (should be) wearing a suit and not have visible tattoos.

Call me old skool, but if you get 8-balls, panthers, barbed wire and tribal art on your neck, hands and fingers, then you are taking your chances as HR people DO judge a book by the cover.

I'd agree with rrwashing. You're pretty much setting yourself up for persecution by getting tattoos in areas that cant be easily concealed. Of course, no potential employer will admit to discrimination but the stigma exists in society and may not conform with the "image" some companies would like to present.

I would also imagine the position you're after would have an effect. For example, if you're going for an analyst position where you would sit in a dark room with co-workers, versus a consultant position where face-to-face client interaction is required.

That said, I had 0 gauges (a little bigger than a pencil) in my ears for 5 years of my litigation support "career" and it never seemed to cause an issue with clients or for my advancement within a company.

Don't make the mistake of conflating body modification and genuine civil rights issues like race, gender, religion, etc. Tattoos are an aesthetic choice, like hygiene, grooming, and clothes – and choices have consequences.

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, employers are well within their rights not to offer a job to someone with visible tattoos, so govern yourself accordingly.

/scott

Thanks for shedding some light on this guys. I didn't even think about ear gauges too cause I also have 0s in my ears. If anything ever happens reguarding this topic, I'll be sure to report back in this thread.

Well, I have a number of tattoos including a full sleeve and it's never caused an issue here. I also have a number of piercings, including septum and 16mm (5/8 gauge) lobe tunnels, plus a mohawk, but that stays down most of the time I'm in work 😉

For court I put retainers in my piercings, and none of my tattoos are visible when I wear a suit. The only time an opposing barrister has commented on my appearance was in a side room to say that they loved my hair, and wish they could do it themselves. I mentioned that they have it easier as they wear wigs most of the time, but I don't think it convinced him.

As has been mentioned above, there is still a stigma surrounding tattoos and body piercings, but this is improving as tattoos and piercings become more commonplace. The best thing to do is not get any facial, neck or hand tattoos (or Everlasting Job Stoppers).

All my tattoos are covered but I have 8mm lobe with wooden tunnels and tongue piercing. At court I wear a Hugo Boss suit and expectational Italian shoes. I wear decent aftershave and cut my facial hair. I look better dressed that the solicitors and I think most of the old judges, jury and barristers have children with tattoos and piercings so can relate. Most of my work is in the lab so it really doesn't matter! I think neck face and hands are no go!

Obviously Stratford-upon-Avon is where it's at!

Obviously Stratford-upon-Avon is where it's at!

Seems that way !

I think that in the security world we are perhaps a little more lax on this one - we tend not to go into court much, so that's not really a defining factor for us, but for client work as previously mentioned suits are de-rigour and thus there aren't really any issues with most body-art. We also have a significant ex-Millitary component, so Anchors/Regimental tattoos are quite common on forearms where they are commonly visible. I think that content is perhaps more of an issue - a well done tribal tattoo or a good dragon is one thing, a naked lady that moves when you flex certain muscles is another !

Incidentally, a tattoo artist I know explicitly refuses to do either hands, neck or face for these reasons …

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, employers are well within their rights not to offer a job to someone with visible tattoos, so govern yourself accordingly.

I don't think there is any "right" to refuse employment because of a tatoo.
BUT no company in the world will ever admit that explicitely, they will simply choose someone else more "conventional" (I am tempted to say "better") looking.

As well, noone has ever been non-hired because being

• dirty
• ugly
• sneezing without putting his/her hand before his/her mouth
• having a hunchback
• ….

but you will be maybe not-so-much surprised that - independently from their actual capabilities and "brain" - generally speaking

• good-looking
• well dressed
• educated
• clean

candidates will have more and better chances at a job interview.

World (and life) is tough.

Having a visible tatoo is not an "insurmountable obstacle" but definitely doesn't make things easier.

jaclaz