Tatoo Dilemma

System

The cold hard facts:

We are a municipality
EE is Hispanic
EE gets an extremely vulgar (with four letter words) tatoo on back of his neck
EE is a 'lead' - directs the work of a crew
Citizen sees tatoo; sends letter of complaint to Mayor & City Manager
A Notice of Intent to Dismiss is issued - EE has right to review and appeal of proposed action prior to becoming final.
EE promptly goes out on disability leave (stress related) - EE has previously been out on similar leave.
Policy fully covers pay while on leave for 90 days so long as EE follows parameters of policy and provides medical documentation updates.
We would like to proceed with dismissal, but EE is incapable (per medical documentation) of meeting with us to exercise his right to review & appeal, so we continue to keep him on leave and fully pay him.
While on leave, EE has filed a discrimination claim with EEOC alleging his 'dismissal' (which hasn't yet occurred) is based on his national origin (I'm not concerned about defending our position on that).
Any advice about what you would do in this situation would be appreciated.

Don D

I would take the emotional piece out of the reaction and ask why you would fire somebody for a tatoo. Perhaps questioning their suitability for the supervisory role would be appropriate if you question their judgement and the effect it may have on their credibility or leadership. That aside, I think you're in for a challenge if you fire somebody without the benefit of your hearing/appeal process, especially when they are on medical leave.

Balloonman

Okay, interesting situation. My first question would be, did you before sending out an intent to term letter bring in the individual and set them down inform him of the complaint and discuss the issue? I would wonder if it could be covered with a shirt with a collar?
While in poor taste and all that, it may or may not be agaist policy, I don't know, but you would. Second if it would or can be covered then that would be the appropriate route prior to termination.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

PS Do not construe my post to mean I don't think you should not term him, just under what you have said, I think you will lose any appeal.

System

The supervisor did bring him in and advise of the complaint. He had apparently had the tatoo for a while but generally did keep it covered; not this day though. Apparently he didn't think it was a big deal.


I know it may seem a 'harsh' penalty for the tatoo, but a couple of things to contemplate - we're a 'right to work' state; displaying vulgarity is a personnel rule violation and grounds for dismissal; council/city mission statement is to act with integrity and good stewardship and provide excellent service - if you're a citizen would you approach a public employee who has a tatoo that says 'BIG DADDY SAYS F*** OFF'? We expect a higher standard of conduct from our employees than that. And, it's a citizen, who we're accountable to, that complained.

I do agree that this may not fly on appeal.

Thanks for the feedback.

rad

Is it in writing that a visible tattoo is grounds for immediate dismissal? If not, could he be asked to wear a shirt that covers it?

marc

Both Don D and Balloonman have raised some good points. When you sent the Intent to Dismiss Notice, did you list a reason? What policy was violated? Of course, politics are involved at this point, but the idea of progressive should be seriously considered, moving right to termination seems a bit hasty. How long did the EE have this tatoo before the complaint came? And notice the complaint did not come from his immediate suspervisor, it came from a citizen, presumeably a taxpayer to the mayor, not through your normal channels. If it was not OK for this EE to have a visible tatoo prior to the complaint, why was a process not already started?

You may be OK with the Race discrimination, but from a pure process standpoint, there will be some interesting questions raised by the plaintiffs counsel.

The delaying tactics used (going out on a stress leave) have been effective for this EE. He obviously was not so stressed he could not file the EEOC complaint - which is probably just a step to take before the private attorney steps in.

He is getting paid for 90 days while you are stewing - use this time to get your ducks in a row, the "fun" is about to begin.

Cinderella

I remember back in 1990 an employee at my local music store had "Pimpin' Ain't Easy" SHAVED into the back of his HEAD. I only saw it once. The next time I went in the first word was shaved off but the last two remained. I can only figure the ER made him shave it.
Cinderella

HRsage

Let me see if I have this right:
1. He's had the tattoo for awhile.
2. He doesn't cover it one day and a citizen complains.
3. You want to fire him due to the complaint but he's on leave.

Why would you fire him? Can't you just tell him to keep it covered? It's a big deal to the ER because of it's vulgarity so he has to keep it covered.
I just don't see that this is worth firing someone over, especially if they are on leave.

Now if he refuses to cover it then that's different.

Just my thoughts.

Pork

1) send him for a 2nd opinion.
2) suspend any further payment until he begins to cooperate.
3) Send him a letter of instruction identifying your specific needs and the out come of his failure to cooperate.
4) You stated he was Hispanic, is he legal, have you done a SSN & Name verification over the telephone with SSA?

PORK

HRsage

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-19-04 AT 02:20PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Pork,
I must kindly object to the suggestion that his SSN be verified and questioning his legality for employment because he is Hispanic.
The EEOC is already involved, doing an SSN check arbitrarily would only give them more to work with.
If SSN is verified, it should be done to ALL ee's regardless of national origin.

Cheryl S SPHR

Let us not also forget this could be clouded by FMLA if he and his medical condition qualify.

mwild31

Yep, you're in a pickle. I'm honestly never afraid to admit to a mistake, so my advice would be to remove the notice of intent from his file & let him know you guys over reacted with a one-way decision when a compromise should have been sought in the first place. In the letter set up a meeting with him (after he returns from leave) to work out the compromise - he keeps the tattoo covered up & mgmt is happy. If that doesn't work for him, then ask him what suggestion he has that will still keep him within policy as anything less forces termination. He'll either compromise or term. himself. My thoughts on the EEOC - you can't really do anything about it until the paperwork hits your desk & you know what you're up against.

I think a business philosophy of providing excellent customer service - to the customer only - is fatally flawed. It has to carry throughout your entire organization - inside out for maximum impact and credibility.

Cinderella

Well said Mwild. Customer service excellence theories only works if it exists for internal as well as external customers. I'm for the compromise: we need you to cover it up during work per policy, if you break the policy we will engage in progressive discipline up to and including termination.
Cinderella