Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tUCKsEDO" data-source="post: 3562469" data-attributes="member: 72925">lol. Something I do not understand is how visible tattoos are still something to talk about. Think about all of the things HR at ANY job protects under the different &#039;protected class&#039; rules. There are far more people in this world with tattoos, let alone beards for Christ&#039;s sake, than make up the individuals who fall under Most of the &#039;protected class&#039; lists.&nbsp; They allow Mohawks to slide at our center, but not day-old stubble. So friend@*%*$g stupid.Only a few local governments – including Washington, D.C.; Madison, Wisconsin; Santa Cruz, California; and Urbana, Illinois – currently prohibit discrimination based on “personal appearance,” which would include discrimination for visible body art.&nbsp; Sam’s Club, Inc. v. Madison EEOC, 668 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. App. 2003).I reside and work in WI, none of us are allowed to have visible tattoos <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/confused1.gif"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:" data-shortname=":confused:" />&nbsp; over 40% of 18-40 year olds have tattoos. Sounds to me that is the demographic they are looking for drivers in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tUCKsEDO, post: 3562469, member: 72925"] lol. Something I do not understand is how visible tattoos are still something to talk about. Think about all of the things HR at ANY job protects under the different 'protected class' rules. There are far more people in this world with tattoos, let alone beards for Christ's sake, than make up the individuals who fall under [I]Most[/I] of the 'protected class' lists. They allow Mohawks to slide at our center, but not day-old stubble. So friend@*%*$g stupid. Only a few local governments – including Washington, D.C.; Madison, Wisconsin; Santa Cruz, California; and Urbana, Illinois – currently prohibit discrimination based on “personal appearance,” which would include discrimination for visible body art. [I]Sam’s Club, Inc. v. Madison EEOC[/I], 668 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. App. 2003). I reside and work in WI, none of us are allowed to have visible tattoos :confused: over 40% of 18-40 year olds have tattoos. Sounds to me that is the demographic they are looking for drivers in. [/QUOTE]

Verification